Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148
1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473
474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Suspension of article movepage rights of User:Kauffner

I am requesting that Kauffner’s pagemove rights be temporarily suspended for failing to cease moving articles that are controversial. This editor has been heavily involved in the requested moves (there are a number of ongoing requested moves on the subject) and discussions concerning the use of Vietnamese diacritics in article titles.

On 12 September, during a the requested move discussion at Talk:Buôn Ma Thuột city, I informed Kauffner and In_ictu_oculi that both needed to cease moving articles for the purpose of inserting and deleting diacritics from Vietnamese articles without discussion, as the issue was controversial.[1]. This seemed neither odd nor unreasonable because requested moves of that subject rarely showed a clear consensus.
On 21 September Kauffner moved Bắc Kạn city to Bac Kan without employing WP:RM
On 24 September, after putting that move up for discussion, I reemphasized that actioning moves that either inserted or removed diacritics was controversial and needed to be discussed.[2]. I also made clear that I was checking their logs of every couple of days to ensure that neither was inserting or removing Vietnamese diacritics in/from names without discussion.
On 5 October, Kauffner moved Thúy Nga to Thuy Nga Production (removing the diacritics) [3], without discussion.

Given I had made two rather clear warnings on this exact subject I don’t believe a temporary rights withdrawal is either unreasonable nor excessive, but nonetheless leave the issue with you. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am always happy to be on ANI. I want to emphasize that I have never received, or even requested, a privileged status with regard to moving articles, or anything else for that matter. It's not true that I moved Thuy Nga without discussion. I wrote a little explanation here. As for Bac Kan, it's a town, not a city. Even if it was a city, there is no reason for it to have a pre-disambiguator. I was reversing a move made in bad faith. If you are interested in diacritics, I give an exhaustive explanation here. Labattblueboy seems to think that Vietnamese diacritics is a hot subject and that this leads to controversy. No! IIO has a grudge against me, follows me around where ever I edit, has a beef with everything, and complains everywhere. Kauffner (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Idea, although I don't believe “move” is a right that can be unchecked, so it would be a formal restriction. Kauffner has been hugely disruptive regarding diacritics for years and this is overdue. cf GoodDay's AC-imposed restriction re diacritics for much the same long term disruption. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As long as Kauffner is willing to see a controversial move reversed, and as long as there is no evidence that a particular move will be controversial, I don't see any need for restrictions here. Clearly there are two opposing diacritic factions and equally clearly neither of them has a claim on exactitude, so we shouldn't be restricting anyone here unless an editor is move warring or obviously moving against consensus. Moving articles is one way of testing consensus. regentspark (comment) 19:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No statement one way or the other on restrictions, per se, but two notes on either side of this: 1) WP:BRD still has Bold as a part of it, if a move he makes is contested, you're allowed to revert it, and then he should discuss it. If you want to contest one of the three moves above, revert and start a discussion. I don't see that that has been done yet (I see lots of admonishments to stop, but that does not amount to a discussion). 2) On the other hand, acting in a fait accompli manner isn't productive: that is, through sheer volume of action establishing a convention which isn't strictly decided is usually a bad idea. I don't see this at that level yet (three moves is hardly a "fait accompli" maneuver). Lastly, I am troubled by the statements by Kauffner that dodge the issue being put bluntly before him. Two of his moves changed diacritics and something else, and his responses are defending his moves based on the "something else", without addressing the point of contention. That should be corrected going forward. If someone is raising the issue of moving articles and changing diacritics in the process, that specific point needs to be discussed without distraction of unrelated issues. --Jayron32 20:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't really have much opinion on the core situation, but just to toss in that at least a small part of this saga played out on a section of my talk page over the last couple of days. This should be added into the mix by anyone examining the recent history of this kerfuffle. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It can seen in this context. Kauffner (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Looks like we do have a diacritic war of sorts in progress. There is also this mass move request on RM. I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to assume a move is controversial so perhaps all parties need to be reminded that WP:BRD is an acceptable process and that, since we don't actually have a diacritics or no-diacritics policy in place, each page move needs to be considered on its own merits. I don't see enough evidence to conclude that Kauffner was disingenuously moving articles to non-diacritic titles but that is also something worth watching out for. regentspark (comment) 20:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound like this is something new and shocking. IIO has been doing dozens and dozens of these mass move requests and also 1000's of non-requests to diacritics across this and every other wikipedia and topic all this year. This is the norm and he and several friends rarely consider each article on it's own merit or whether a rm has recently failed or not. It's not just Vietnamese diacritics, it's all diacritics. I won't get into merits on this one particular incident but it seems silly to talk of the flyswatter and not the fly. I think Kauffner is just reaching a breaking point with this editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say above, I don't see any need for action against Kauffner. Rather, it is the other editor who needs to be reminded about BRD and about proposing page moves individually. If you believe that IIO needs to be sanctioned somehow then that's a different matter and, since I don't follow the diacritic battles, I can't really comment on that without further evidence. regentspark (comment) 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the root of this mess is years of disruption by Kauffner. I've not been following this closely, but there are various archived threads about this. He's made a great many controversial moves and there was an issue with many IPs being used to mess with talk pages to hide old RM discussions so that new ones could be falsely proposed as uncontroversial (somethin' like that, at least;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible to revert moves wherein the article is first moved then a G6 is employed to salt the route back. The edit history of Thuy Nga Productions shows this was conduced it this case. The better question would be is an action still considered bold if you are aware that the action is controversial bordering on disruptive. BRD itself states "Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus". The only consensus appears to be that editors are generally tired of Vietnamese diacritic moves of any kind, the requested moved at Talk:Bac_Kan seems to be the clearest indication of that. Given the entire topic is controversial (you need not look further than the half dozen at WP:RM to see that) is the request that such moved be addressed at a central venue that unreasonable?--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unreasonable, no. But definitely avoidable unless necessary. If Talk:My_Linh#Requested_move is the tip of the iceberg (and, scanning RM/C I see quite a few others), then we're going to get bogged down by these move discussions. The problem with diacritics is that each article needs to be evaluated in isolation (what do English language sources say), so group moves are generally not possible. It might actually be more practical to just ban both of these guys from making or proposing any move from a diacritic title to a non-diacritic title or vice versa and be done with it. It might not be fair but may turn out to be the only way to deal with this without a load of overhead. Just a thought. regentspark (comment) 02:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, with respect I hope you are agreed that there is a difference between:

(A) 1600x undiscussed moves - 800x of them counter the Talk:Ca Mau RMs, and 1600x BRD-locks on one hand, and

(B) putting in a democratic RM to give the community opportunity apply the majority view of both RfCs on the subject.

There is a difference, yes? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought In ictu oculi. Not something I necessarily support. I'd rather not see anyone banned from anything. regentspark (comment) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, plus he seems to have the habit of adding irrelevant tags in his undiscussed moves to prevent everyone to revert then without a good amount of work, as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12].Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I like about you? Your sense of humor.[13] Kauffner (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - but a hefty caveat: I am not neutral here; although I only became aware of this issue in March 2012 I have been creating Polish bios with Polish names for years and do not have much sympathy with en.wp's English-names-for-Poles lobby. I also was in Hanoi in the early 90s, speak Vietnamese, and believe that Vietnamese people deserve the same lexical respect from en.wp as Polish people. But I am able to detach, and when standing back do recognise that even Slavophile editors may not share my view on the second point.

As I see it there are 2 separate issues: (1) User Kauffner, (2) diacritics.

(2) - Let's discuss (2) diacritics first. I wasn't aware of the "diacritics war" on en.wikipedia till March WP TENNISNAMES RfC. During that RfC I also became aware of edit-warring on WP:DIACRITICS. WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:DIACRITICS share the same characteristic of a minority of editors sincerely convinced that foreigners have "English names" - hence Lech Wałęsa's "English name" is "Lech Walesa" minus crossed-L and nasal-e, or sincerely convinced that en.wp should follow the MOS of USA Today/Daily Express etc and not Britannica/Chicago MOS. In terms of a "diacritics war" there evidently has been one on en.wp, as far as I can judge going back to 2010, centred particularly on WP:HOCKEYNAMES, but civily and democratically resolved in terms of articles Talk:Dominik Halmoši. Though unresolved in terms of edit-warring on WP:DIACRITICS is still at odds with en.wp's 4 million articles (or rather 4 million articles minus 9 hold out foreign tennis players). With one exception; Vietnamese. For some reason Mỹ Linh (Asian, no consensus) is more challenging than Lech Wałęsa (European, where de facto consensus exists on 100,000s of articles). Admin JoyShallot characterizes the "English name" thing against Serbian tennis players as "xenophobic" (technically it is only "xenonymophobic") but I note that the editors who turn out in force for Serbian/Czech/Romanian/Polish/French/Spanish/German names are less sure about for example Talk:Ngô Bảo Châu. This despite the fact that the Vietnamese roman-alphabet is older and more established than the Croatian/Slovenian/Serbian one. But whatever, it is legitimate to note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh.

(1) - Then issue (1), User Kauffner.

This is much wider than whether the accent on Mỹ Linh should be treated as Lech Wałęsa. The issues with Kauffner are largely behavioural, and cover much wider ground than undiscussed diacritics moves.

(a) IP puppet activity

The scope of move interests can be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive (this has not previously been at ANI). This is logged out set up of archiving - minutes after the puppeted Misza archive bot clicks in - launching second or third attempts when the archive is invisible. Although the opinion of those who discussed the Saigon IP cluster's activity concluded the tampering with archives prior to launching RMs from User:Kauffner/RM incubator was User Kauffner, User Kauffner did not admit to it in the SPI and a User check was not done to link user to IPs. Kauffner did (not on the investigation page) admit on Good Day's Talk page that the edits were his, and there is a "smoking gun" in the history of the IP's activity on one of the RMs which shows Kauffner, inadvertently logged back in, finishing the IP's archive reset.

(b) Undiscussed move then redirect lock

Up to a point undiscussed moves are reasonable, as regents park says as long as the WP:BRD cycle is not disrupted. (this issue has not been at ANI before). The problem is with Kauffner, as banned-user Dolovis, is redirect edits. If you look at Kauffner's activity in June 2012 you will see 100s of redirect edits, effectively locking the 1600x undiscussed moves made July 2011 to June 2012. This includes 1000x under UserKauffner name, + 600x using G6 involving at least a dozen G6 admins in performing "uncontroversial moves" on Kauffner's behalf. An example of WP:BRD cycle blocking is 15:07, 4 November 2011‎ Kauffner moved Bún chả to Bun cha: Removing diacritics from Vietnamese name for standard English usage) + 30 June 2012‎ Kauffner (added Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics using HotCat). After a Dolovis-style redirect edit June 30 2012 the only way to restore a locked move is an RM - and even then a 3-1 support of restoring a title may be overturned by a closing admin.

(c) Deletion of failed RM notifications prior to G6 requests

One of the particularly unpleasant aspects of the G6 moves counter the 2010 2011 2012 Talk:Ca Mau geo article RMs was the deletion (logged in) of notification of failed RMs before proxying G6 admins to move counter RM with a G6 request. (this issue has not been at ANI before). Obviously no G6 admin will move an article if there is a notification of a contrary RM result on the talk page - hence the deletions have to be deliberate intent to deceive admins making (in good faith) article moves as uncontroversial.

(d) IP archiving prior to G6 requests

This is distinct from (a) above. In this case the IP archives the failed RM not before launching a second RM, but before/after bypassing RM with a G6.

(e) Canvassing

Kauffner has been warned about WP:VOTESTACKING on several RMs. Similar is targeted canvassing for example to WikiProject Conservatism (this is just a particularly desperate example of a longstanding pattern).

(f) Deleting Talk page requests to stop

Deleting Talk page requests to stop (these go back to July 2011, long before I was aware, AjaxSmack, Gimmetoo, Prolog, Vietnamese editors, who knows how many more), and carrying on regardless.

(g).......or alternatively,

If you agree with User Kauffner's views - on Hauptbahnhof or Vietnamese - then a good cause justifies the methods. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may stand above as the one who began this discussion but in due fairness to Kauffner, In ictu oculi comments are the pot calling the kettle black. In ictu oculi has an equal sordid history of moving articles when he/she should have known them to be controversial. If I remember correctly, my warning of 12 September at Talk:Buôn Ma Thuột city was initially because In ictu oculi moved approximately 100 articles while a requested moved concerning geographic Vietnamese names was taking place. Further In ictu oculi was entirely unrepentant. The only reason In ictu oculi is not equally mentioned is because he/she as not moved an Vietnamese scope article to insert diacritics since my initial warning of 12 Sept.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Labattblueboy,

Sure, in part fair, but I'm not sure about "entirely unrepentant" because as you say, I did not continue to restore articles which had been among those moved counter Talk:Ca Mau (among the 1600x total moves). What I did explain was that restoring 80x of the 800x was after RMs restoring several of the moves, after RfC majority, and after admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett (and one more whom I forget) had already reverted approx 40 of the 300 of the 800 geo articles which had been done by using G6. If anyone considers reverting those 80x of 800x undiscussed moves (moves counter to RM) "disruptive" then does that apply to the other 40x reverted by the proxied G6 admins admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett as well? However I was asked to stop restoring the articles and did. In practice it was hard work to restore the articles anyway, since finding any among Kauffner's undiscussed moves which have not been given Dolovis-style redirect-edits to prevent BRD is almost impossible. I estimate that I already found most if not all of the 80x of 800x geo stubs he omitted to lock. There is less of a clear mandate to restore the 800x bios. And there has been more locking activity since. (If anyone doesn't believe me, try and find one that isn't locked... then call the pot equally black).

As regards the pot calling the kettle black, I am not perfect but, as above:

(a) I have never used IP activity of any kind.

(b) I have never followed a move with a redirect lock

(c) I have never deleted a failed RM notification prior to a G6 request. (In fact I am reasonably certain I have never used a G6 request template at all)

(d) I have never used Miszabot to hide a previous RM (never even thought of it)

(e) I have never made the sort of WP:VOTESTACKING notifications during an RM or RfC we are seeing here.

Unfortunately if you wade into mud you will get your hands a little dirty. This is a filthy area. But is a filthy area which is being enabled by winking at (a)(b)(c)(d) in particular. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel my previous comment was both accurate and fair. You have not at any point accepted during this or any other discussion, to my knowledge, that your own actions were sometimes inappropriate. Your comments above that it’s necessary to sometimes get “dirty” are in the very least unhelpful. Simply ceasing to move articles in a controversial topic area does not, by any means, equate repentance. Equally, simply because you may not have engaged in actions (a)-(d) does not mean your behaviour has necessarily been appropriate in the topic area. If this post concerned actions over the past year or further, and not simply approx. 12 September onwards, then I would be entirely supportive of PBS’s suggestion below that any remedies apply to both yourself and Kauffner. Please see this as an opportunity to turn a new leaf.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Labattblueboy,

Thanks for your comment. We probably are nearer on this than you think. I already said, before you arrived, two days before your first comment, that I have no intention to restore any more than the 80x of 800x undiscussed moves counter RM that have already been restored.

As to "repent", most editors would not, under normal circumstances, view reverting a move made counter an RM a sin to be "repented" of, at least in a case like this where it was carefully preceded by (a.) 40x restores by admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett, (b). confirmation by RfC, (c.) confirmation by a series of RMs: Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên RM, Talk:Hồ Quý Ly RM, Talk Talk:Ca Mau RM3, Talk:Bánh bò, Talk:Cơm tấm, that these undiscussed moves counter RM were not uncontroversial. But again I had already, before you appeared, said, I have no intention to restore any undiscussed moves made contrary to RM.

I'm really not sure what more you want of me here. (and btw I didn't say it was necessary to get dirty, I only said you will.. this is a filthy area, so that was intended as the opposite, that we should try not to). Are we good now? I'd hope we can be. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am good with whatever solution sees an increased level of civility in this subject area. Move waring in this family of articles doesn't do anyone any good. I'd frankly be happy with an affirmation by parties involoved that any Vietnamese diacritic article moves be first discussed or handled through WP:RM (likely on a case-by-case basis) until such time that a community solution on the Vietnamese diacritics issue is developed. Like RegentsPark, I'd rather not see anyone banned from anything.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labattblueboy, thanks. I'm 100% fine with everything you say here. I couldn't agree more, since if there's no undiscussed moves, no G6 use, no IP edits, no redirect locks, then there's nothing to revert, no need to put in RMs to restore Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên, Talk:Hồ Quý Ly, Talk:Ca Mau, Talk:Bánh bò, Talk:Cơm tấm, Talk:Mỹ Linh etc. in the first place. We can get back to creating/building articles. Then we're good, very good. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIO is claiming to "speak Vietnamese"??? Trời ơi! I'm sorry, I just can't sit still for this one. We've discussed various language issues. IIO can't get even very simple stuff straight. I live in Saigon, so I edit about Vietnam. I read the local English-language press, so I quite familiar with the fact that the professionals don't use Vietnamese diacritics. Nor is Vietnam promoting their use in English, as you can see here. No published encyclopedia or major media organization uses these marks. Local publications that once used them, like VGP and VNN, have dropped them. They make the copy look amateurish. I spend many hours telling Vietnamese not to use Viet-lish. The editors of Lech Walesa's article can worry about his diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner, I wouldn't doubt that your familiarity of street Vietnamese is better than mine, now, 20 years later. But we aren't here to discuss this.

(a) Do you now want to give a yes/no answer to the SPI?

(b) How many articles have you followed an undiscussed move with a redirect lock? The records show 1600x from July2011-June2012, with redirect locks continuing even this week. I estimate 1500x redirect locks. Is that about right?

(c) Did you (while logged in) delete failed RM notifications from Talk pages prior to G6 "uncontroversial move" requests?

(d) Did you (while logged out) manipulate Miszabot to hide previous RMs some of them not yet launched from User:Kauffner/RM incubator. yes/no?

In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:BRD does not work when articles are locked on purpose. Kauffner has continued to lock articles even after being asked not to do so. Agathoclea (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, how is he locking pages down. He's not an administrator, and doesn't have the ability to protect pages. I'm confused to this rationale. I don't care one way or another, but this makes no sense to support sanctioning him for using an administrator tool he has no access to... --Jayron32 06:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - By double-editing redirects he makes it impossible for rank-and-file editors to revert his moves, requiring admin rights to undo the move. The issue is tricky as redirects have to be categorised but a) he does that even when he could create the redirect and categorisation in one edit and b) in controversial cases like this it is better to leve the categorisation until the matter is settled or to the other side iE I can without causing any controvery lock redirects from diacritics wheras Kauffner could without any controversy lock redirects to diacritics. Maybe some noticeboard could be established just for that issue. c) There is past precedent for even banning of editors involved in exactly that behaviour. Agathoclea (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe there is another method of gaming the system to achieve this "lock", which would keep an editor's hands "clean" at first glance; but it's probably not a good idea to go into detail right now. If we were drawing up stricter rules on redirect-mischief I'd be happy to add it to those rules. bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not to use diacritics in titles is the subject of much disagreement between editors, so such moves should go through RM. In the last year, we've made a lot of progress on that front. Still, some people persist in making undiscussed moves to diacritic-free titles and sometimes sneakily edit the redirect to prevent somebody else moving it back; that is gaming the system. A previous combatant in the diacritics wars was banned for it. Kauffner knows this. bobrayner (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support move ban Käuffner has been caught many times on this, and knows better. dangerous panda 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am placing the following bullet points here and my views are based on what I have seen both editors doing over a number of months.
- Comment Iio wrote "note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh" yet the last requested move was closed with the statement "The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 46 days" support/oppose about 10/11. -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that user:Kauffner and user:In ictu oculi are banned from moving any article that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months. This ban will include initiating WP:RM request that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months. This ban will not include reverting bold moves (as described in WP:RM) and both can still voice their opinions in requested moves initiated by other editors.
- I suggest that all the editors who have edits that have been diffed in this section for editing redirects after a move has been made (which prevents an non-administrator moving the article back to the previous name) should take this as a warning that such edits are disruptive and in future any such edits by these editors will result in administrative action. Likewise moving an article through an intermediate page name (so that the bots automatically change the original page name's redirect) will be seen disruptive (the correct process if a mistake has been made is to move the article back to the original name and then move it to the new correct name--so that double redirects are not created). -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PBS,

I'd like to assume good faith, but you see Kauffner making 1600x undiscussed moves, 800x of them counter the Talk:Ca Mau, IP puppeting, G6 and basically NOT using RM, and your solution is........... to ban RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez and Talk:Dominik Halmoši????

Your personal view (10:30, 11 Apr 2005, 18:57, 23 December 2010, 09:12, 22 April 2012) was characterized as "hysterical"‎ during your 1-8 opposition to É in the Talk:Édouard Deldevez, and also this response from the closer.

Sorry, but no. RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez and Talk:Dominik Halmoši express the consensus of the vast majority, and the reality of where en.wp's 4,000,000 articles are (minus those 9 tennis players). You know this. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of this is to force controversial moves to go through RM not to avoid the use of RM. Agathoclea (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi that you would object to a restriction on yourself is not surprising. Iio your argument is disingenuous most articles that go through the RM process that are not at descriptive titles are at their common name as used in reliable sources. Agathoclea in the case of these two editors I think that they can be just as disruptive using the RM process, I think it is better for Wikipedia if both take a back seat over such moves for a time and follow rather than lead in this area. -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PBS,

First, can I ask a question. Have you ever restored an undiscussed move to an article made contrary to a RM result?

Second, another question. Have you ever made an undiscussed move and then locked it with a redirect edit?

These are questions I have answered here ("yes" to first, "no" to the second) it's reasonable for me to ask others the same question I think, yes?

As regards taking a quid-pro-quo with Kauffner, that wouldn't be appropriate, as I'm not making new moves, I've only restored some. But I'd be willing to consider a quid-pro-quo with yourself, if you would take a back seat from editing MOS pages and guidelines on diacritics/sourcing for 12 months, avoiding this kind of edit then I'd be quite happy to not submit any more RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez for 12 months. Would you consider taking a back seat in this area? I would be (not least since it's getting very difficult to even find mispelled foreigner bios). In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The community [banned] Dolovis from moving diacritic related titles because of the exact same methods that Kauffner has been using to lock the pages so that regular editors can't revert his moves. I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the same restriction that Dolovis was given. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was going to mention Dolovis as well. This comes down to a very simple issue for me: There is no possible way Kauffner is not aware that moves to or from diacritical versions in this area are controversial. WP:BRD, like WP:AGF is not a poison pill. There comes a point where the bold move simply becomes disruptive. I would !vote the same for any editor on either side of this coin who makes a similar pattern of moves. Reso lute 13:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With everyone ridding their own hobby horse like this, I obviously can't deal with every concern, so yours may be overlooked. IIO brings up the issue of the page moves I made last year. This was already dealt with here. But while we are on this trip down memory lane, I would like to review a few items. As you may or may not recall, there was an RfC on the issue of diacritics with wide participation in July-August 2011. A proposal was made to increase the use of diacritics, but Vietnamese was specifically excluded. So despite divided opinion concerning other languages, there appeared to be a consensus in this regard. I rewrote the naming conventions for Vietnamese to conform to this understanding of the RfC. So when IIO got involved in this issue in late June 2012, pretty much every Vietnam-related article of any notability was at a non-diacritic title. Thuy Nga isn't the first time IIO has tried to hold an article hostage at a misspelling. He did before with bui doi. IIO and I have a long and complex history. In happier times, we translated Latin and Hebrew titles together. More recently, Vietnam and other countries have been caught in the crossfire. I can only hope that common ground will reemerge when appropriate matters arise. Kauffner (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of that is true, I am actually in favour of English exonyms where they exist (i.e. "John Calvin" for "Jean Calvin", not simply stripping ç to make "FranCois Mitterrand,") and did award Kauffner a barnstar for one of his English names moves. However, that is before any of us were aware of (i) IP puppeting, (ii) G6 proxies, (iii) deletion of the Talk:Ca Mau RM results from talk pages, (iv) the 1600x Dolovis-style move-locks, and none of these items have been at ANI before. As to this latest two-step-G6, move to a self-admitted mispelling and then G6, certainly creative, but that only makes one wonder whether the G6 loophole should be shut down for everyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format," per WP:RE/SG. So the act of putting a redirect in a category is not in itself problematic. In Dolovis' case, he was accused of going against the consensus of the hockey project. The technical means he used to do this are a secondary issue. There is certainly a lot of advise to "take it to an RM." As far as RMs go, IIO abuses these to fulminate at length against me, in the same manner that you see above. I don't know how many editors follow these rants, but they do seem to head off reasoned discussion and editor participation.[14] Kauffner (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per (b), (e) above. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Since the issue of diacritics is undecided, I don't like the idea of a move ban on either editor. My inclination is to warn Kauffner not to lock moves through redirects and to warn iii not to propose multiple page moves in the same move request. Placing bans is not a good way to deal with things for which there is no existing consensus. If bans are the way to go, then we should ban both per PBS, but I don't really like that option. Banning Kauffner alone is a terrible idea. --regentspark (comment) 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, multiple RMs of similar pages have frequently been encouraged, particularly in this area, and are common practice. Please look at the WP:RM archive. If you want to ban anyone posting an RM for multiple page moves you need to propose changes to WP:RM. There is one in there right now at Talk:Comparison of web browser engines by PBS himself. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant only in reference to diacritics. For figuring out whether we should have diacritics in titles, we need to look at common usage in English language sources. That would mean looking at each article separately rather than listing them all together. For example, per WP:COMMONNAME, each listing in your RM multi-move request needs separate verification. Listing them together is equivalent to asking for a stylistic norm to be codified (which is better handled by an RfC). --regentspark (comment) 17:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well okay, that view is noted but again since use of multiple moves has in the past been encouraged in exactly this diacritics area, if you want to change WP:RM you need to raise a general restriction on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves to remove the community's ability to bunch similar RMs if they involve foreign accents.

And FYI we just had a RfC immediately prior to putting in the RM to restore the undiscussed and edit-locked moves at Talk:Mỹ Linh which had an evident majority in favour of treating Vietnamese people like any other Latin-alphabet nationality. Even after RfC there still has to be an RM even after an RfC....btw WP:COMMONNAME means Pelé (not Edison Arantes do Nascimento), rather than Daily Express "Pele".... but this isn't the place to discuss WP:COMMONNAME. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose RegentsPark's thought process makes good sense here. I don't like the idea of bans either. Those two warnings should be sufficient for now, with a quick revisit should circumstances change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you promising to bring this to ANI at his next offence? Anyway Kauffner was warned repeatedly about the issue for longer than a year now and instead of stopping he continued. What makes you think he will stop now? Agathoclea (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They've both been brought to ANI in the past year, probably multiple times. To me this argument has these two editors joined at the hip as far as Vietnamese diacritics are concerned but I hate lengthy banning if at all possible. I would do as RegentsPark suggested on the two... a formal warning. If it fails a 30-60 day ban on doing any of the offenses mentioned, and go up from there. It's not like these editors don't do good work also. Admittedly, it's difficult for me to remain unbiased when it comes to IIO, but to say it's all Kauffners fault is really ridiculous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that over 90% of diacritic RM are going in favour of the diacritic versions. Attempts to stop that trend by attempting to change guidelines has failed. Attempting to get the WMF involved on so-called accessability issues has failed. Now the only possibilities left are undiscussed moves in the other direction, socking and other gaming of the system. You are suggesting a 60 day ban from such offences. That means after 60 days he is allowed to game the system again. Sounds rather daft to me. The suggestion of this thread is to stop any undiscussed moves in controversial areas. I am sure IIO can be held to the same standard. Agathoclea (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. About time that something is done top bring home some points to Kauffner, who has for much too long been able to talk his way out of sanctions. This recent comment of his is an example of his disingenuous refusal to acknowledge that his behavior is disruptive. It's not like he hasn't been told before, e.g. here. Favonian (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RegentsPark. Closing admin should issue a strong warning on both editor's talk pages. If either continues to move such articles without going through RM, or continues to "lock out" moves, or continues to bunch several diacritic-related move proposals together in multi-move requests when each should be considered separately, then a ban should be expected. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle, I obviously agree against undiscussed moves and edit redirect locks. That's why we're here.

But if you want to restrict the community's ability to submit multiple moves you need to propose it at TALK WP:RM. Multiple moves are a core part of the WP:RM mechanism (and useful exactly when dealing with mass undiscussed moves and redirect locks). In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with regentspark comment's as well as Born2cycle's remark that both editors (Kauffner & IIO) should be warned for their disruptive and obsessive behavior regarding the diacritics issue. I think it would would be helpful to 'request' both editors to take a step back from their diacritics crusade and allow a cooling down period of at least 6 months or so. --Wolbo (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting that they have to step away from the proper way of resolving controversial moves? If so, it would actually reward Kaufner for gaming the system as the first-mover-advantage. Agathoclea (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it from a broader perspective. Both editors have their own distinctive ways and means but regarding the diacritics issue they are equally obsessive and disruptive so there should be a balanced approach in how this is addressed by the community. This balance however is lacking and this seems at least partly due to the observation that IIO is supported in his/her conduct by a group of editors who appear to be blind in one eye. Hence my proposal for a cooling off period, preferably voluntary, to be observed by both editors.--Wolbo (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Enough's enough. As one of the admins working at RM, Kauffner's actions have been extraordinarily disruptive to that process. He is plainly aware that his moves are controversial, and yet he's continued making them, despite repeated discussions and warnings for over a year. He has absolutely no regard for Wikipedia's consensus building mechanisms in this area. I won't rehash all his disruptive methods already covered by others, but it needs to be said what effect they've had.

In the bulk of the dozens (hundreds?) of controversial moves Kauffner has made, or compelled others to make by falsely marking them as "uncontroversial", simply getting the pages back to where they were entails a fresh move discussion. Dozens and dozens of unnecessary discussions, forcing literally weeks of community back-and-forth and many hours of administrator's time (as the moves are almost always reversed, and as his habit of manipulating the redirects requires administrator action to close), further compounding the already dire RM backlog. All just to reverse undiscussed moves. For several months, I don't think I've seen a single day where there weren't several of these discussions in the RM backlogs. Additionally, as I've become involved, I no longer close the many RMs involving one of Kauffner's moves, and I believe other admins have done this too, leaving even fewer people to clean up his mess.

Simply giving Kauffner yet another warning is obviously not going to cut it. I believe he should be banned from the move process entirely, but in the very least he needs to be banned from making moves, from editing redirects after moves, from requesting uncontroversial moves, and from using any undisclosed alternate accounts.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. IIO comes here with unclean hands, having wikistalked Kauffner for months and orchestrated disruptive WP:FAITACCOMPLI moves to place or re-place diacritics on titles for which the consensus of editors or sources was to remove them. In many ways, IIO's disruption is even worse than Kauffner's, because Kauffner only deals with Vietnamese articles, and those for which he can make a case based on the reliable sources. Trouts for both of you.
About the page locking issue: we shouldn't make it easier for users to make controversial changes without going through RM, especially in the midst of a partisan dispute where if the pages were unlocked, Kauffner's rights were restricted, and IIO's rights were left alone, we would see a new flood of tendentious page moves from IIO and other veterans from the Czech/Serbian diacritics wars who are trying to expand their diacritics into an area out of their expertise, Vietnamese. Shrigley (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shrigley,

(i) UserKauffner's undiscussed-move-and-lock technique does not only affect the 1600x WP:VN articles moved (1000x under own name + 600x as G6 proxy = 1600x, of which 800x geo articles affected by IP puppeting to hide the Talk:Ca Mau RM2 and deletion of failed RM notification). See (right now) RM at Talk:Dukes of Albret to revert a move which was redirect-edit-locked preventing revert. See undiscussed move of Koblenz-Stadtmitte station to Koblenz City Centre Station, redirect-edit-lock, Talk:Koblenz Stadtmitte station RM to restore.

(ii) the reason people watch these contributions are for edits such as:

16-17 July 2012 - mass undiscussed move-and-lock of Category:Vietnamese footballers while arguing against several RMs to restore undiscussed move-and-lock of other articles.
19 July 2012 - proxying by G6 of admin Y followng VN editor Grenouille Vert trying to restore undiscussed moves of his article creations at Ngô Sĩ Liên.
20 July 2012 selective canvassing, aka WP:VOTESTACKING
17 August 2012 moving Caritas' Ngô Đình Lệ Quyên the moment the Sockpuppet investigation was closed as "too long didn't read"
etc.

(iii) As I said 2 weeks ago, I have no intention to restore any more of the 1000x undiscussed moves under his own name - and even if I wanted to I can't because they are redirect-edit-locked. As regards the 600x done by misuse of G6, if the admins proxied want to restore the 600x acheived by G6 that is up to them. Some do, some don't. Though in some cases the G6 admin revert his own G6 twice. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "Vietnam expertise" - the WP:VN's editors already had the vast body of WP:VN articles at Vietnamese names (same treatments as Czech and Serbian) before Kauffner moved them, otherwise there wouldn't have been opportunity to move 1600x. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think his actions justify such kind of sanction also like Shrirgley noted there are some problems with IIO behaivour.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Shrigley that In ictu oculi's unilateral, fanatical obsessive-compulsive blanket adding of diacritics to article titles across the whole of English Wikipedia, regardless of wide usage of the non-diacritic form in English, is a far greater problem that Kauffner's reverting diacritics in (mainly Vietnam-related) article titles to plain English. In ictu oculi has repeatedly attempted to intimidate administrators and smear anybody who thinks differently, and organize bullying of editors with messages to the effect that, "Wikipedia rules are that all European articles must have diacritics in the article title, and if you persist in using the non-diacritic form you will be banned" when there are no such rules and there have been no successful RfCs on blanket use of diacritics. GoodDay and MakeSense64 are just two of several formerly-productive editors who have been baited and bullied. In ictu oculi seems to think that Wikipedia guidelines can be disregarded if one has a large enough private army. He has previously been cited for his obsessive behavior over diacritics in titles of French articles, and he is not going to stop at all the European articles, it has to be all the Vietnamese ones—without any exception—as well. I agree with PBS that if there is any ban then it should apply to both. Although Kauffner's RFC was ONLY about using diacritics in titles, IIO modified his "Census" after the fact to make it look as if it was about ALL diacritics or NO diacritics. The previous ANI discussion on this ongoing problem was rudely shut down. LittleBen (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

respond on User's Talk page In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the person cleaning up Kauffner's mess is now at fault? Anyway, since you are quoting your own crusade against diacritics as gospel may I remind you of this reponse you recieved from WMF staff. Agathoclea (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Wars over unsettled MOS issues should go to ArbCom per longstanding tradition. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. The arguments that Kauffner shouldn't be banned because others have also behaved badly are pretty weak, in my opinion. If others are causing problems they should be dealt with, but it certainly doesn't exonerate Kauffner from his own demonstrable and ongoing disruptive actions. And it certainly doesn't make up for the huge amount of wasted time and energy he's caused at RM to clean up his mess. This isn't a matter of different interpretations of the MOS, it's a matter of Kauffner blatantly and repeatedly abusing the move process and wasting many weeks of the community's time in the process.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you realize that I wrote the naming conventions for Vietnamese? What you care about Vietnamese diacritics, anyway? This is payback for the Dark Ages RM, isn't it? Hey, if it means that much to you, go move the thing back. Kauffner (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've only looked at it briefly but the talk page there shows continuous disagreement (as does this thread). That page should probably not be tagged as guideline, but only as a proposal. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re: Kauffner: No, but that's some pretty amusing projection. Not that it matters, but I don't really care about Vietnamese diacritics at all. What I care about the the severe disruption you continue to cause to the RM process through the actions highlighted above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You showed up at SPI with the same song and dance, so you've got a white whale of some kind. So you are just a guy really cares about archive bots settings? Kauffner (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I suppose that reaction is to be expected from you. Back in reality, as I say, my interest here is as one of the relatively few administrators who's been working regularly on the RM backlog. Can you honestly claim that the myriad undiscussed moves you've made or initiated have not resulted in numerous move discussions, backlog congestion, and increased workload for closing admins? Can you honestly say you have not engaged in surreptitious behavior and sockpuppetry to get your way?--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tijfo098, In your view is there a difference between (A) making undiscussed moves/G6 and locks counter RM results and (B) using the WP:RM process to give the community opportunity to restore undiscussed/G6 and locked moves? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIO has moved hundreds and hundreds of articles to diacritic titles without discussion. Certainly his Vietnamese moves go counter to any reasonable interpretation of the guidelines. Kauffner (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone can check I haven't "moved hundreds and hundreds of articles to diacritic titles" and certainly not "without discussion". Yes on 1 May 2012 before I was aware of the strength of anti-foreign name lobby on en.wp I moved 4 Czech hockey players to Czech names to (a) agree with the article sources, (b) agree with the rest of en.wp's 4,000,000 articles. PBS, who was following me reverted me and we then had 4 duplicate RMs Talk:Ondřej Látal which were unanimously against PBS' view, with PBS himself eventually conceding that the move was justified. Since then I, and a couple of others, have been making use of the RM process to give myself and fellow BLP article-space contributors opportunity to implement by WP:RM the results of the Hockey/Tennisnames RfCs. And the result is at e.g. Talk:Dominik Halmosi, leaving 9 tennis BLPs which were closed the other way, and that's fine. We can leave those 9 as a permanent monument to "English names." on en.wp, it isn't the end of the world. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to IIO's buddy Br'er Rabbit's comments that, "the root of this mess is years of disruption by Kauffner. I've not been following this closely, but there are various archived threads about this", and "Kauffner has been hugely disruptive regarding diacritics for years and this is overdue", it would be useful to look at this ANI and this talk page. LittleBen (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sally Season

Highly suspicious single-purpose account. The username is an obvious reference to "silly season" and has only edited articles related to Republican-affiliated interest groups, mostly to subtly push positions opposed to Republicans. My encounter with this account has been in the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund where Sally keeps reverting attempts to have claims about OPSEC being a Republican swift boat effort attributed to the Obama Campaign, which is supported by the sources. When I noted this on user talk, Sally's response included the claim "The campaign doesn't accuse the group of being Republican, they only refer to the group as Republican." The account's user page also appears to be getting used to list editors with whom the account has had negative interactions. It smells like trolling, and it could also be a sock.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the incident is that you are asking about, or what intervention you feel is needed at this time. Could you elaborate please.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the account's contributions. Basically just making tendentious edits and then edit-warring over them, as well as some other issues. I am not sure what the most appropriate action to take would be, but the conduct speaks for itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, not at all. The SPI went nowhere, and so there's a different tack tried now? It may well be that this account/editor is up to no good, but you'll have to do better than say "smells like trolling" without providing any evidence at all. Come up with diffs and an explanation for them, and maybe we'll talk. If you don't, this should be closed pronto. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked at the oldest half, because I got bored at that point, but they appear to me to mostly be legitimate content disputes. And per Drmies, this smells like forum shopping, and should be closed immediately, with the reporter sternly warned for such actions. —Kerfuffler thunder
plunder 22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per both Drmies and Kerfuffler - close as possible forum shopping and no legitimate issue raised.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who filed the SPI so how can I be forum-shopping? The actions of this account elsewhere are what drew my attentions, not the SPI. Contributions from this account are minimal and the issue can be clearly understood from looking over the revision history of the OPSEC article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This really does seem to be an effort at stifling an editor whose opinions do not match your own. Insomesia (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, again this was really simple as the conduct essentially dominates the minimal contributions of this account:

[15] - Removes material noting claims of OPSEC being Republican came from Obama campaign, as the source clearly supports, to simply say it has been "described as" Republican.
[16] - Reverts RightCow.
[17] - Reverts Belchfire.
[18] - Reverts me.
[19] - Reverts me again.
[20] - Fifth revert overall.

Three editors oppose this change, but Sally keeps reverting it. Before the last revert I had plainly noted on Sally's talk page that the source explicitly supported what Sally claimed was not supported. The response included the above quote that "The campaign doesn't accuse the group of being Republican, they only refer to the group as Republican." Plainly obvious that such a distinction has no meaning in this context.

Aside from this incident, the account has been edit-warring in a tendentious manner on various other articles within a very narrow focus:

Koch family

Americans for Prosperity

[24]
[25]

David H. Koch

Does that suffice? This does not include the conspicuous act of listing editors on the account's user page. Note the following discussion page as well: [30]. BTW, it has nothing to do with my opinion on the issue and everything to do with my opinion on the edits and conduct evident with this account.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here is also illuminating: [31].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Sally Season has done on Americans for Prosperity in no way even approaches edit-warring. I note that AdventurousSquirrel reverted their edits, after which they were restored by a seasoned editor. It always takes two to tango, and from what I can tell, in that particular case Sally Season was not warring and had the sources on her side. I've looked at Koch Family as well, where we had an edit-war brewing and consensus did not seem to be on Sally's side. There was talk page discussion (humorous to read, since no one seemed to understand Sally's joke) and then it was over. So where's the beef in those two? With those two, you've established that Sally and Squirrel got into it and then it was over. Was a report filed at ANEW? What other avenues were pursued? (I may look at a few more--I do thank you for providing these diffs.) Drmies (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that I messed up on that one. I cited a diff that was immediately after the second revert. Here are the two reverts from that article: [32] [33]. The reverts were perpetuating an edit war over the conservative label for the group.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked at the diffs you gave for Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, and you are correct: Sally Season is edit-warring there with way too many people (and they're absolutely wrong in this edit and others like it. I've given them a warning for edit-warring on that article, and I personally think their edits should be undone--but it should be looked at by someone who is not you or a squirrel, or me. Mind you, I'm sort of wearing two hats here (editor and admin), but that edit-warring took place is clear (admin) and that their version is incorrect is clear to me also (editor).
So, I'll grant you the charge of edit-warring on that article, but I won't block right now, since I just gave a warning. Your larger issue is, of course, tendentious editing--but that's something that should probably not be handled in this forum, and it will take more evidence. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice I've been mentioned a lot here but I was never notified about this thread. The reason I started the SPI is because Sally had edited a lot of articles that StillStanding-247 had been editing right before he was blocked, and some of the edits Sally made on the pages were the same edits or reverts that Still had been working on, so it looked pretty suspicious. But it looks like based on the IP's that it's unlikely they are the same user. Sally does seem to have a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality but I wasn't about to bring him/her up here at ANI for any reason. We resolved or are resolving our differences on article talk pages. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're not here on any charges. ;) I saw the SPI as it was happening, and I thought also, for a moment, that there was something going on. Now, I won't deny that there is some battlegrounding going on here, but I think it kind of comes with the territory (dumb politics), and I don't think it's gotten out of hand yet. Again, if there is a larger issue it should be dealt with somewhere else; issues like edit-warring should be dealt with at ANEW and I don't see enough (evidence) yet to block. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have is that, all of it put together is rather suspicious. "Sally Season" is obviously a reference to "silly season" and the conduct has been almost purely disruptive. I have a hard time believing that this is just another partisan editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concur on the edit warring part, but as they say, it takes two (or more) to tango, and this looks like the usual suspects tag teaming again. I completely disagree on the content issue in that dispute, though; saying “accused the group to be Republican” is both ungrammatical and horrendously POV; and saying that the group criticized Obama without any indication of why is seriously light on context. —Kerfuffler thunder
plunder 02:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar aside, the source in question uses the word "accuse". little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro! The real story: We were discussing changes to an article when your arguments began to fall apart, sources were shown to disagree with you, and questions were asked that you couldn't answer. So you fled the discussion to come here to disparage me with innuendo instead. "Sally Season" is a reference to "silly season"! OMG, really?? Can I play, too? "Devil's Advocate" has "Advocacy" built right into it, which is prohibited on this website, and nothing good ever comes from the deceptive Devil! There, now we both sound stupid. You linked all my edits above, and called them disruptive when they are not, unless by disruptive you mean they side with the sources that go against your perspective. If you can't make a reasoned argument to support your position, then attack the editor as a puppet or partisan or "rather suspicious". This website is just a barrel of fun. Not.Sally Season (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice of username would be meaningless to me if your conduct were appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything out of the ordinary here. It's hard to call someone editing high-profile American politics articles a SPAs; there are lots of editors who focus on that. And "Disagrees with me" does not equal WP:DE. If you think this is StillStaning or some other socking editor, file a SPI. I see Drmies has warned Sally not to edit war. That should do it for now. I suggest closing this thread before it turns into the usual bickering surrounding articles on politics. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's Still. Also, it isn't about "disagreeing with me" as the account's article edits consists of little other than edit-warring and the discourse is mostly uncivil.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've firmly established in the Belchfire thread that just got archived that apparently nobody gives a flying fuck about that. —Kerfuffler thunder
plunder 16:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently nobody cares if editors lie through their teeth about other editors, either. Take this whopper for instance: "the account's article edits consists of little other than edit-warring and the discourse is mostly uncivil." Does he do this all over the website, or just here?Sally Season (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I have stated is quite accurate. I would be more than able to prove it, but as you have received a warning about edit-warring I think elaborating further on that point would prove fruitless. Unless someone finds reason to suspect there is more to this situation, the discussion will be archived.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you you were "more than able to prove it", you would have, instead of backpeddling and urging that the complaint you opened be closed. Are you oblivious to the fact that everyone else sees through that ploy? You are trying to apply the same faulty reasoning here that you tried to apply to your assertion that reliable sources say what they do not say. The single warning I received does not support your whopper: "the account's article edits consists of little other than edit-warring and the discourse is mostly uncivil." Further, Drmies issued that warning in error, thinking that I had reverted an edit by you against consensus. A consensus, it turns out after subsequent discussions with him, that didn't exist. So I have been warned for reverting your error, and I will gladly wear that badge. It's not like I have received many such warnings, either. That would be you. Oh yes, I did some digging on your page, hon. It's not like I have been blocked, that would be you, many times. I'm not the one who has been questioned by arbitration admins, that would be you. I'm not the one who has ever been banned, that would be you, multiple times.

You are right that more of your efforts of suspicion, innuendo, lies and mudslinging "would prove fruitless". Maybe another section should be started here with your name in the title instead of mine. My discourse has been just as civil as that of those with whom I have conversed. Show me a normal person who wouldn't get just a little testy after receiving the same treatment.Sally Season (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was in the process of providing all that evidence, but decided against it because I can think of nothing it would actually accomplish except maybe getting you some additional warnings and I also considered it possible that you could become a more constructive contributor now that you are aware of the serious concerns regarding your conduct. You can believe what you like of course, but the reason I just gave is the reason I decided against adding more evidence of misconduct.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent competence issue

I’ve encountered an apparent competence problem that in my view has reached the point at which it requires admin attention. The editor, User:Davebrayfb, makes occasional sound edits but most are poorly considered or executed and many require additional attention or outright reversion. Attempts to engage the editor on his Talk page have been completely unavailing.

Here is a well-abridged sampling of troublesome edits, in generally ascending order of concern:

Idiosyncratic addition of information to articles which is generally plausible but unsourced and possibly incorrect. E.g. declaring that because one company involved in the production of a program is in Canada – a fact not in evidence in the article – the program is properly described as “Canadian-American” (see diff); adding “Emmy-winning” to an article when the company appears only to have been nominated (diff);

Very infrequent use of edit summaries;

Creating a category with a typo, here;

Creating superfluous redirect pages (“Mrio” to “Mario”; “Mini mARIO” to “Mini Mario” – itself a redirect to “Mario”) (both since deleted);

Removing a proposed merger template (albeit stale) without discussion, here;

Undoing, without comment, other editors’ efforts to clean up articles and remove cruft, here;

Placing articles into non-existent categories here then doing it again – twice – after other editors undid him, here and here;

Low-grade apparent vandalism – here;

Page blanking, diff and diff;

Unilaterally moving “Nick.com” to “Nick.co.uk” without discussion and inconsistent with the content of the article, which is about “Nick.com” – followed, a couple of weeks later and after a Talk page reminder about the need to discuss most moves beforehand, by another unilateral move (“Viacom (1971-2005)” to “Viacom (1971-2006)”);

Adding a “Good Article” designation to article that is not, in fact, a “Good Article”, here (defending the edit by saying that “it’s not a bad article”);

Not once discussing any edit, before or after making it, on any article Talk page.

I estimate that about ¾ of this editor’s edits are reverted by one or another editor. He’s been accumulating Talk page warnings and comments for several weeks; they’re all generally friendly (because the edits rarely seem malicious or completely over the top) but they do not seem to be having the necessary salutary effect, and this editor’s poorly considered edits continue pretty much unabated. I can’t seem to get his attention and thus have concluded that the matter requires consideration here. Thanks for any and all help. JohnInDC (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm leaving for the night, but looking at the contribs, in particular the new talk: contribs, does lend credibility to the claim of a clue deficiency here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First edit less than 6 months ago. Check. Less than 200 edits. Check. Indef as incompetent. Check. Or maybe xe's just new and doesn't understand the culture here. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to add to the foregoing list, "unilateral restoration of duplicate article in place of redirect, which - again - review of edit summaries and / or relevant Talk pages could have averted". Diff. This fellow requires almost constant monitoring, or (I think) at least an attention-getting block; and I'm growing weary of the former and can't do the latter! JohnInDC (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious and uninformed editing by User:Farwah_khan

Farwah_khan is an SPA who submitted Nadia Khan Show (a Pakistani talk show) to WP:AFC for review on 5 October. Vexed by the backlog, FK that same day asked the Teahouse[34] how to expedite the AFC process, didn't appear to take the advice from the mentors, and on 7 October went ahead and just pulled the article from AFC and published it solo (see Special:Contributions/Farwah_khan).

The article isn't horrendous, but rather crufty. Subject does appear to be notable, mentioned in a few published academic books on Feminism and also presumably in a lot of Pakistani media. FK, however, has ignored suggestions to improve the sourcing, follow WP:TV guidelines, and has persisted in repeatedly uploading improperly licensed images, getting them taken down, and putting them right back up again. I've communicated with FK over three days (during which time FK has been actively editing), giving detailed suggestions, and just asking FK for some communication with the editors trying to help FK. No avail, article still greatly lacking, and FK is still wasting volunteers' time by repeatedly uploading copyvio images.

Can I suggest some kind of short block, or block whose end is predicated on FK demonstrating active listening and willingness to follow guidelines? MatthewVanitas (talk)

As is typical for me, I started to look at the page, and my editor-hat came out before the admin-hat, and I made whole bunch of edits to the. As such, I'm now WP:INVOLVED. Let's see if Farwah khan tries to revert these or violates policies further. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Farwah Khan's response to my changes was to just replace most of the same info (non-neutral prose, repetitive details, and links to blogs). I've reverted, left one final message on the user's talk page, but I recommend that another admin (who can actually stay uninvolved, unlike myself) block the editor if s/he makes another edit like this without communicating. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I expected, the reverts continued. As I also expected, the user has just admitted to having a WP:COI--see the edit summary on this edit. I've left a final warning, but another admin is welcome to advise further or even block now, as I don't expect this to get better on its own. Perhaps if the user is blocked we'll get some time to actually talk this out so the person can understand the problems and how to properly proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the user has repeated again, I request a block. Either a short one (a few days), or indefinite (until the user agrees to edit according to policy). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 48 hours, which should be enough time to force them to the discussion table. If there's no response and a repeat of the behaviour after the block expires, ping me and I'll take further action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request topic ban for User: Agadant at Web Sheriff article

I would like to request that User: Agadant be topic banned from the article Web Sheriff. Since March 2010 Agadant has obstructed NPOV changes to the article’s content and all talk page discussion and has driven away many editors including those like myself who were invited to the article via 3rd Opinion, noticeboards etc. [35] because of POV and promotional issues that persist until today. I have no personal issues with Agadant and have not edited the article or talk page for more than a year. Though I have never met Agadant on any other articles, I believe him/her to be a skilled and useful Wikipedia contributor. However, on this Web Sheriff article their presence has been a strong disruptive and obstructive influence over a period of years and now it needs to be addressed.

Items from talk page Archive 1:

8/18/10 User: Blokatoh “this article reads like Web Sheriff propaganda and really needs some POV work”
3/4/11 User: Luisarfs “Propaganda”
5/15/11 User: Nouly “I find this article very biased”
3/27/11 User: HelloAnnyong “Clients section being a total mess”
6/2/11 User: HelloAnnyong Agadant, your most recent edits aren't really doing much good……Phrasing like that is really just puffery and doesn't belong in the article.
6/2/11 User: Luisarfs as an IP: “I think you will find that trying to edit this article without an admin's intervention is quite pointless. Agadant will not allow it.”
7/12/11 User: gracefool “This article is still really biased”
7/29/11 User: Keithbob “It may be time for you [Agadant] to just walk away and focus on a new project”
8/2/11User: aprock “The clients section contains far too much detail that is of no encyclopedic interest”
8/3/11 User: Cameron Scott “This article reads like a press release”

Items from the NPOV noticeboard thread where Agadant opposed every editor for 4 weeks despite overwhelming consensus:

8/3/11 User: Mathsci “The article is still written as is if it were an WP:ADVERT for Web Sheriff. “
8/3/11 User: Alexh19740110 “I agree that it is promotional in tone.”
8/3/11 User: Cameron Scott “it could come straight out of a glossy brochure."
8/3/11 User: Collect “A "documented" ad is still an ad.”
8/3/11 User: gracefool “My problem is Agadant isn't allowing anyone to tag the article as POV, even though most people agree it is.”
8/10/11 User: Brmull “There are numerous examples of opinion presented as fact,
8/26/11 User: Cameron Scott “Editor still has WP:OWNERSHIP issues and seems now to have transformed into a SPA in his attempts to control this article”
9/7/11 User: VQuakr “This us/them mentality is a recurring theme I have seen in your [Agadant] approach to editing the article, and combined with significant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is probably why some of the editors attempting to work with you on the article have become frustrated."

The items below are from talk page Archive 2:

8/12/11 User: Tarc “Please stop making ever tiny issue with this page into some gargantuan war of epic, hysterical proportions.” [36]
8/16/11 User: Collect “The problem is more that the amount of PR material in the article makes it non-utile as an encyclopedia article IMHO”
8/17/11 User: Cameron Scott “[Agadant] your frankly odd behaviour and statements are not conductive to good editing. Your constant IDIDNTHEARTHAT….”
9/4/11 User: Ronz “the tone and presentation in the article is repeatedly changed [by Agadant] to have a less encyclopedic tone and to less accurately represent the sources.”
8/13/11 User: VQuakr “When you [Agadant] fight even the most trivial issues like this, it gives me concern that you are too emotionally invested in this article to work in a collaborative environment."

Agadant’s visits the user talk pages of editors who disagree with him on the Web Sheriff article to argue and express outrage:

Aug 2011 @Keithbob’s talk page [37]
8/30/11 User: Keithbob “Dear Agadant…..A number of editors (including myself) have asserted on that article talk page and various noticeboards that you have been behaving in a disruptive manner, as if you own that article. Your post above which criticizes me, my user page and my editing history, is a response to my participation in content discussions on the Web Sheriff talk page. Your post above, smacks of stalking and personal attack and appears to be an attempt at intimidation. Further, you have approached other Editors on their talk page in response to their edits or comments on the Web Sheriff article in an effort to influence their editing there. I suggest to you, as I have before, that you re-consider your actions, as you may be digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. “
Sept 2011 @ Ronz’ talk page [38]
9/5/11 User: Ronz “I think the only solution is for other editors to work on the article, and for others' to let them. …..[Agadant] Take a break from the article.”[39]
Aug 2011 @ aprock’s talk page [40]
Aug 2011 @ VQuakr’s talk page [41]

Material being constantly added back into MassResistance

With this edit, User:Insomesia has added back into an article a new addition which has not obtained consensus. A new section was added on 6 October, and almost immediately challenged. The discussion about inclusion was closed as no consensus. There was then a discussion about whether the lack of consensus meant the material should be removed. I sought advice at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#What to do when there is no consensus. It seems very clear that, on this point, the article should revert to the last consensus version, and I made the change with this edit. However, this has been reverted by User:Insomesia on the basis that there was "no consensus to remove". This seems to be an impossible situation, and I don't want to edit war, so I thought I'd post it here. Could someone help, please? St Anselm (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do at ANI, and will leave to other opinions, but this does look like more than a content issue, and more like a POV and a bit of a coatrack issue. That undue tag seems completely appropriate, and that section does seem to be inappropriate. The Mitt Romney section above doesn't look much better, seems more of a political coatrack than an encyclopedia article in many sections. Looks like it needs a major trimming. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Need someone objective to look at that closer, I'm heading out, but I can understand the concern here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could buy that it's too long, but as it's directly related to the mission of the organization, it's hard to see any justification that it's a coatrack. —Kerfuffler thunder
plunder 03:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how we decide on material. Arguably, everything you can imagine that violates WP:COATRACK is about the subject in one way or another. That isn't the standard. WP:UNDUE is certainly a consideration. The article seems to focus a great deal on tangent issues, focusing on the negative info itself rather than the actual group itself. That is what COATRACK is all about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do, however, have to go where the sources lead. If the most notable thing about the group is that they foment hate then that's what the article should cover. Insomesia (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have you considered engaging in a discussion on the talk page and trying to reach a compromise, or proposing an alternative rewrite of the content in question? It doesn't really seem helpful to constantly revert the entire blocks of content until you run out of legal reverts and then forum shop for an admin to intervene. This is a content issue that a friendly negotiation on the talk page could easily solve. Of course, we have to be careful not to confuse consensus building with stonewalling. – MrX 02:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I was the one who started the discussion at Talk:MassResistance#Robocalls, and I started Talk:MassResistance#Robocalls redux. WP:Stonewalling is a red herring - we had a discussion, and it closed as "no consensus". And please don't accuse me of forum shopping - I have not raised this at any other noticeboard, other than Wikipedia talk:Consensus, as mentioned above. St Anselm (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK,whatever you say. – MrX 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right - I posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, when we had both agreed the discussion had ended. But what is your second diff all about? That's the very posting I have twice mentioned above. Why would you engage in such silly innuendo? St Anselm (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just my (silly?) opinion that there may be an over-dependence on process, when simple collegial discussion would solve most of these content disputes. Of course, it requires flexibility from all concerned. – MrX 03:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you care to explain why you wikilinked "whatever you say" above? St Anselm (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, first you use edit summaries for discussion instead of the talk page, then you revert on the basis that there is ongoing discussion (which is not supported by policy), then you misapply WP:STATUSQUO and also seem to imply that your opinion in consensus, and then after the RfC fails to reach consensus, you try to edit war the content out under the false premise that no consensus makes that legitimate, then when that fails because you reach 3 reverts, you bring it to WP:ANI. Did I miss anything, other than what your complaint is about? —Kerfuffler thunder
plunder 03:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the section was first added, I removed it, giving a reason. It was then added back in, in considerably expanded form, and I removed it again. I asked MrX to discuss it on the talk page, which is what an editor would normally do, following BRD. But in actual fact, I started the talk page discussion myself, two minutes later. So you are seriously misinterpreting my edits. Let me also get this straight: there has never been a consensus to have a robocalls section in the article. Why did you add the material back in when there was no consensus to include it? St Anselm (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your deletion because your reason (as stated in the edit summary) is simply not supported by policy. One does not need to get consensus to add well sourced material to Wikipedia. And BTW, the reason the RfC didn't reach consensus is that someone closed it way too early, when only a few people had commented—shockingly, mostly the same people who have been involved in this latest round. The fact that you edit warred against three different editors ought to make it clear that the problem is perhaps you. —Kerfuffler thunder
plunder 04:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I turned down the first request for closure. But closed it as no consensus after a third party requested it. I stand by my statement that it didn't need closure. I felt that the request for closure was simply being used as a tool to further a particular POV and not to request a neutral editor summarize a long or complex discussion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss out on the discussion? Did you have arguments up your sleeve that you didn't get a chance to present? I asked for closure because the material had been added back in with a consensus proclaimed. Yes, I am happy to admit that I have posted here because I was up against three different editors - it was an edit war I was always going to "lose". But it doesn't follow, and nor do I concede, that the problem is me. St Anselm (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs aren't about you and me. They're normally left open so that other uninvolved people have a chance to review the situation—it's a large part of the reason for starting a RfC in the first place. Requesting a premature close prevents that. As for bringing to ANI, fine, now that you've admitted to an inappropriate reason for bringing it here, take it elsewhere (perhaps DRN). —Kerfuffler thunder
plunder 04:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. First of all, there was no RfC. Secondly, this posting is not about content, but about process. MrX added back the section here on the basis that "sourced content can remain until and unless a consensus forms to remove it". Now, my issue with this is that the material in question was newly added. Surely "no consensus" in this case means that the material should remain out of the article until a consensus is reached. Thirdly, the "premature close" came about because a couple of editors felt that a consensus had been reached, and put the material back in. Which would have been fine, if a consensus to include had been reached, but the editor closing the discussion said this was not the case. St Anselm (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time that Insomesia has EW with the same faulty "no consensus to remove argument". Im not surpsied to find that other editors also consider the edit to be POV, as this has gone hand in hand with such edits. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not the first time that StAnselm has edit warred on the false premise of "no consensus to add". —Kerfuffler thunder
plunder 03:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree with what WP:CON says? If new material is added and there is no consensus to add it, then it is removed. If existing material is removed and there is no consensus to remove it, then it is added back in. Do you agree with that? Do you think that I've made ever edit that is contrary to that? I probably have, but I cannot recall any specific situation. Can you jog my memory with a diff? St Anselm (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest round of content dispute in which StAnselm and a few others, including an apparent regular on ANI, have deleted content on articles dealing with anti-gay hate groups. Mr X. has shown extreme patience in sourcing and restoring and trying to reason with these editors and unfortunately we've had to resort to a string of RfC's to get material restored again and again. I was about to start two more RfCs when this popped up on my talk page. So I guess we'll again waste the community's time with yet another RfC to hopefully end the edit warring. I suppose this is how every round will go but it does seem tiresome when it amounts to just StAnselm and one or two others tag-teaming to delete this content across multiple articles, which is then upheld by community consensus to keep and restore. Insomesia (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insomesia reifies above the concept of the existence of groups that "foment hate". This shows the same disturbed thinking shared by StillStanding-247 (analysis) here. To review, StillStanding-247 was indef blocked after just ten weeks as a Wikipedia editor, having accrued 18 admin warnings, an edit warring block, and a topic ban; before talk page ideation turned to paid murder as a form of retaliation for being topic banned. Here, Insomesia wants the "quick" return of this indef-blocked editor, and states, "I always pay attention to what they contribute."

Also above, Insomesia states, "unfortunately, we've had to resort" (emphasis added). Just because other editors promote the "hate group" labeling does not also mean that they want to reify the concept as existing other than as the opinion of the SPLC. What is relevant is that Insomesia self-identifies as a member of a clique. Unscintillating (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You can shelve the tin hat theories, thank you, and I see little need to respond except to state we have an entire list devoted to anti-gay hate groups that is the central subject of this content dispute. Further to my previous comment to you regarding StillStanding, I'm not interested in battlegrounding with you about anything. The only clique I'm a part of is the one of editors who rely on reliable sources to build articles. I hope everyone is in that "clique." Insomesia (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding the subsequent conversation on the blocking admin's page, here are the relevant diffs, [47], [48], [49]. Regarding the claim that Insomesia supports the reliable-sources policies and guidelines, this diff says otherwise. Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request topic ban of User:Novaseminary for persistent disruptive editing at Douglas Tait (stuntman)

User:Novaseminary has tried unsuccessfully to get the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP deleted twice before. Here, and here. But having failed at deletion twice, for two years now, Novaseminary has also failed at WP:LETITGO. He persistently challenges the BLP's notability and threatens to start a 3rd deletion attempt. He also regularly violates WP:DE. He edit wars and disruptively edits almost on a daily basis, pushes POV, attacks other articles because they are mentioned in the BLP, creates suspect disambig stubs, insists on irrelevant or dated edits, violates OR, uses citation tags to edit war, like here, here, here and here, removes sourced quotes and attacks and fights to include and spreads unflattering and irrelevant material about the BLP's subject over several editor's objections.

But Novaseminary is also knowledgeable of WP rules. So knowledgeable that he uses WP to argue & defend his indefensible actions, even as he ignores all the WP rules & policies that his tendentious editing violates. He cites the rules that give him cover, and just ignores those that expose his tactics as disruptive. Recommend an immediate topic ban. Not just for the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP, but for all the articles sourced in the BLP. Otherwise he will just retaliate by continuing to disrupt them. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute. Have you taken this to WP:DRN as a first port of call? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's more than a content issue. It's a persistent, long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. So per WP:DDE, ANI "may be the best first step." 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article would probably benefit from both these editors leaving it alone. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, unless admins enforce it, don't count on it. Otherwise I wouldn't have had to come here. I've suggested several times that Novaseminary just take a Wikibreak from the article. He refused. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this at WP:RFPP and have spent more time than I'm willing to admit looking through it all. 3RR violations from dynampic IPs are really disruptive, but similarly I think we can do without Noveseminary's bizarre obsession with this person. I'm going to give Novaseminary time to respond, but I strongly lean towards a topic ban for both users. – Steel 00:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I'll accept that. If Novaseminary is topic banned, I'll voluntarily self-ban. My only request is that the last edit before the ban is monitored/reviewed by uninvolved 3rd party/parties to insure no Novaseminary POV. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never violated a single guideline or policy at this article. The IP seems to care more about how this person is presented favorably than about the nietrality of WP, but it tough to know what else if anything this IP has edited. This article was one of several resume-like PR/POV articles i've come across over the years. I, and others, tried to make it neutral and then kept it on my watchlist. Almost everything i've done i've discussed at talk. I have only even edited this over the last few weeks because an IP came along and removed well sourced text without discussion until posted at a NB. Novaseminary (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out, I only nominated this article for deletion once, with no consensus. I actually came across it at the first successful AfD nom made, not by me, but another editor. The IP seems to think I have had it out for this person, but I have been only one of several editors to do things the IP apparently disapproves of, but that I think comply with policy. (At one point the article cited several non-RS articles written by a single publicist, for instance.) Novaseminary (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our IP user has agreed to a self-ban from this article providing you do the same. From your comments above that the IP's edits are the only reason you've even been editing the page recently, this should be an acceptable resolution for you too. Right? – Steel 15:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Novaseminary? I do agree that you have an all-too strong interest in that article. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that I haven't touched the article since Drmies came along and restored some sanity to it. Even though we still disagree on an issue, and even after the temp-protect was denied. But even as a dynamic IP, I've respected all these dispute resolution processes. I should also point out the same can't be said for Novaseminary. Just today: 1, 2 and 3. Drmies has already attacked my intentions and falsely accused me of COI - after working on the article for just a few weeks. By the way, I found nothing that supports Novaseminary's "single publicist" theory. But what I did find, is that Novaseminary has been at this article for almost 2 years, much of it for months at a time as it's as the sole editor! Just look at the period from March to May of this year, folks. And please let's not forget Novaseminary's "Douglas Tait obsession" goes well beyond just the article. The creation of his weird disambiguation. The fact that he slapped up a Douglas Tait (illustrator) stub that was so non-notable, that months later, it's still just a stub. He also slaps up citation tags on any article even mentioned in the BLP, as I noted originally. And just today, his obsession with 1 article on Tait about him getting kicked off his HS basketball team was revealed again! (Which by the way, a subsequent article that he never includes noted was a 1 day suspension!) But for your convenience, and possibly entertainment, I pulled just how many times and places I could find where he (or his meatpuppet who did it twice), have fought to include that one article - over the objection of far more editors than just me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and just TODAY - you guessed it: 32!

But that tally also excludes these, found on the article on Tait's high school, Bishop Alemany High School : 33, 34, 35, and 36!

By the way, he has also attacked that article, presumably because the school and/or team dared to admit Tait: 1, and 2.

So it should be clear by now folks, that the problem isn't me. But is exactly as Steel said: Novaseminary has some "bizarre obsession with this person." Geez, Novaseminary can't even stay off an article when he's being ANI'd over it! Now I know, to Drmies, I'm just some lowly SPA with a dynamic IP and some as alleged, yet unexplained, COI. But I just happened upon this deal a few weeks ago, and you've got a real problem on your hands that's been persistent long before me. So you can either do something about it, or you can continue to let Novaseminary's wackadoodle freak flag fly. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:CC27:F942:1C73:3E49 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is true that the IP has left the article alone since Drmies restored sanity to it. IP seems to have edit warred with the Dr since the Dr made his edits. That is why the Dr asked for the article to be partially protected. In fact, the Dr reverted IP most recently. And I just restored to the version IP said he agreed with (and others did, too) on talk, but then s/he changed. Novaseminary (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I have edited the page at all since this iteration was created is because it was recreated after deletion at AfD and, at that time, was quite promotional. To be clear, I do not think this individual satisfies N (the only indepth coverage were several articles since disclaimed by the newspaper and removed from the article and one more article that striked me as a non-RS). But if there is to be an article, it should not be a promo piece, or even a non-promotional piece that neglects widely covered aspects of this individual because somebody doesn't want that covered. And it is not just the current variable IPv6. Various other IPs at other times have inserted unsourced or promotional material. So has at least one regular editor who was blocked, X4n6 (whose arguments and edit history seem to me quite similar to our IPv6 editor). I have always tried to achieve consensus at talk and adide by it, and except for disagreements from IP or other editors who have actually broken WP guidelines and policies and been blocked for it (X4n6 and one of the recent IPv6 identities blocked here), I and the other editors have succeeded in reaching consensus (including the current version of this article). We did so despite being up against at least one individual who, in my opinion, did not have WP's best interests at heart or even any stated or apparent interest in WP for WP's sake at all. I think it would be strange and detrimental to WP to topic ban an editor who has never been blocked, has followed all guielines and policies on the article in question, seeks and abides by consensus at the article in question, and has only had run-ins at the article with tenacious editors who have been blocked for their violations of various guidelines and policies (including the IP requesting this action who certainly has before and does even in the post above with the "wackadoodle freak flag fly" comment and unsupported claim I have a meatpuppet). I hope we don't allow editors whose edits indicate that they are more interested in positive coverage of a particular subject have veto power of a good faith editor who edits to keep WP from being misused for the sake of WP. Novaseminary (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonable to have my integrity questioned and my edits reverted because I am an ip?

As [here] 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to think that an IP address which has no edits and then suddenly starts editing the Manual of Style during a contentious argument is in fact a registered user who happens to be editing while logged out. If you do not already have an account, it is easy to make one (although as I said it is surprising that your very first edit on Wikipedia was to the Manual of Style). If you already have a registered account and are editing while logged out, that is tolerated to some extent, but of course it editors may not find it very respectable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, Carl. Could you answer my question? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in that link that appears to be any sort of question regarding your integrity because you're an IP editor. Perhaps you provided the wrong link or I missed something? Doniago (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you missed the edit summary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Carl answered your question in his first word. – Richard BB 13:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he answered a different question in his first word. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I question the integrity of IP editors and revert their edits frequently. Neither is strictly because the user in question is an IP, but rather than the bulk of IP edits are utter crap, and their reasons for editing as an IP are steeped in bad-faith and deception. Hopefully that answers the question. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not feel it would be better to revert edits solely on their merits? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would, but editors are human and make mistakes, which is especially easy when so many IPs do nothing but vandalise and troll. If you only want to edit WP as an IP, you have to accept that sort of discrimination will just happen, and handle it. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to differ on that one, Richie. I don't believe that ips should have to accept discrimination from admins or anyone else, and I don't believe it's possible to discriminate by "mistake". 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who appears to be a new user can have their integrity questioned, IP or otherwise, as long as everyone is civil, doesn't bite the (supposed) newbie and follows the correct policy and guidelines. If you happen to be on an IP that gets recycled, then, well sorry but we've got no way of knowing your previous contributions, and you can't easily prove another IP was you. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind I would like to keep this discussion open for further input. It has hardly been open 5 minutes. I disagree with the notion that it is reasonable to question the integrity of an editor simply because he is an ip, and I would like to hear further input. My main concern, which nobody has addressed, is that I was reverted twice: as above, and also [here], simply because I'm an ip. Is that reasonable? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I contest the premise, namely, that it was "solely" or "simply" because the edits were from an IP. There appear to be several other factors at play, which Carl captured nicely in his original response. JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking into the matter too deeply, it appears to be an edit-warring issue more than an IP issue? 192.251.134.5 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Noetica's edit summaries seem to be valid enough for the RfC to be closed; a competent and experienced editor closed an RfC that yielded no consensus. You undid it (your first edits were to the MoA article as a whole, which seems suspicious), and Kwamikagami rightfully commented that you may be a logged-out user. So, yes, Carl did answer your question. – Richard BB 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that an RfC was [closed] by an uninvolved editor. There was nothing at all wrong with the closure. Noetica reverted the closure, demanding that it be closed by an Admin. Discussion ensued on the talk page, and the overwhelming consensus was that Noetica had no right to demand closure by an Admin. Therefore, the original closure should stand. This morning K [closed] the RfC with a different decision to the original. If that second closure is allowed to stand, then we are opening the floodgates for any involved editor to undo an RfC closure which he dislikes, and demand it be closed by someone else. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you remove the word "anonymous" from the edit summary (and it took me about 30 seconds to find out you're in the UK, and you're a Plusnet broadband customer, so you're perhaps not as anonymous as you might think), the premise for the revert is just as valid. Another editor disagreed with your edit and gave a legitimate reason for reverting it. Take it to the talk page if you disagree. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely aware that as an ip I am not anonymous, whereas those of you who are signed in are. Thanks very much for posting my details to ani. You don't seem to have noticed that the edits we're discussing are on the talk page. 14:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your question is disingenuous, 146.90. You weren't questioned simply because you are editing as an IP. You were questioned because your only contributions on this IP relate to a contentious MOS debate and you show a far greater understanding of Wikipedia than a new editor would - including running straight to ANI. In truth, if you had registered a SPA sock instead of simply editing logged out you would have faced the exact same questions. Reso lute 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This snarky comment: "(Undid revision 517379871 Undoing a revert founded entirely on ad hominem. Welcome to WP! We can't allow editors to continue reverting a valid RfC closure until they have a result they like.)" seems provocative enough to result in this response: "(Undid revision 517388417 by 146.90.43.8 (talk) why do we have anon. IPs edit warring over this? at least have the integrity to sign in.)" Neither would be acceptable as habitual behavior. I would simply write this off as an unfortunate incident. I realize someone could have been editing here for many years without creating an account, but making substantive comments based on long experience requires using your registered account in order that they may be seen in context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I shouldn't have written "Welcome to WP", but I absolutely stand by the Ad Hominem remark. Noetica has successfully overturned an entirely legitimate RfC based simply on the non-admin status of the closing editor. He is now removing my edits based on my status as an ip. That is not he way WP is supposed to work. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To 146.90, I have no strong feeling over whether or not it was OK to revert you on the grounds of the content of your edit. Your edit summary was unnecessarily snarky and might have invited a knee-jerk reversion just fot that. I do think that the answer to the narrower question of "should my edits be reverted just because I'm an IP" is a definite NO. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit does not require that anyone creates an account to do so. merely strongly encourages it. However if you make potentially controversial edits with snarky edit summaries, I'm afraid your IP status probably is going to be a factor in another editor's decisoin to revert or not. The deciding factor will be the quality of your edit however, not your status. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Kim, I accept that the remark seems to have come across as snarky, and so I shouldn't have made it. But as I mentioned above I was actually trying to make a point with that remark. An RfC has been overturned based on editor status. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not reasonable; the edit summary comment is contrary to longstanding policy that registration is not required to edit. I've left a note on the editor's talk page asking them not to do that in the future (unfortunately, current software does not allow edit summary comments to be edited).Nobody Ent 17:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I'm not seeing evidence the reversion was inappropriate. Nobody Ent 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The situation here seems relatively clear that this is an experienced editor using an IP address as a sockpuppet, not a novice IP editor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#sockpuppet? Not clear to me. Policy says if you suspect a puppet file a WP:SPI, not to declare the editor non grata. Nobody Ent 19:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a longtime editor here, you should know full well that SPI's involving IP's are always rejected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why? I'm a longterm editor here (AN & ANI), not there (SPI). So if someone suspects an IP editor is returning editor but can't id the regular account, it's simply guilty as suspected? Nobody Ent 01:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Checkusers will never comment on IP's. It's against the rules. However, if the IP here would level with us instead of jerking us around, he could regain the good faith that he's destroyed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Nobody, the reason I feel that the revert was inappropriate is that I asked here that Kwamikagami explain why the initial RfC should not stand. Kwamikagami ignored that request completely, citing as the reason for his revert only my status as an ip. The RfC had already been closed here . If Kwamikagami is not going to allow that initial closure to stand, then I believe it is incumbent upon him to explain why. If he can't explain why, then the initial closure should stand. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the timeline:

Nathan Johnson closes the RfC as consensus in favour.
Noetica, who was deeply involved throught the RfC, reverts, claiming that the RfC should be closed by an admin.
Discussion ensues on the talk page. The overhwelming consensus is that Noetica had no right to require that the RfC be close by an admin.
I make the changes to MoS based on Nathan's closure, and am reverted by editors who !voted against the change.
Kwamikagami re-closes the RfC as no-consenus.
I revert Kwamikagami asking him to explain why Nathan's closure should not stand.
Noetica reverts me because I am an inexperienced ip, and Kwamikagami is an experienced editor.
I revert Noetica because my status as an ip is irrelevant.
Kwamikagami reverts me because I am an ip.

I would like that Nathan's original closure to stand. It was a perfectly valid closure, reverted by a heavily involved editor. If it doesn't stand, then we're saying that it's okay for involved editors to revert a valid RfC closure if they're not happy without the result. Allowing that will result in chaos. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't ask Kwamikagami anything, you made an unenforceable demand in an edit summary. If you wish to ask a Wikipedia something, use their talk page. Nobody Ent 20:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said "This RfC has already been closed. If you feel the previous closure was invalid, please explain why, and say how your closure rectifies the faults in the last one.". Whether that counts as asking or demanding, is it not a reasonable request? Kwamikagami was overriding the previous closure. Does it not merit a response that is not simply a reference to my status as an ip? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

then we're saying that it's okay for involved editors to revert a valid RfC closure if they're not happy without the result. Isn't that what you did in steps 6 and 8 of your timeline above? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it absolutely is not. If Kwamikagami had been closing the initial RfC, then I wouldn't have dreamt of reverting him. Seriously. All of my reversions are attempting to back to the initial, valid, closure. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole "because I'm an IP" sounds a bit like "Is it cos I iz black?" As Nobody Ent said, use the talk page. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I'm bothered about the ip thing is that it is being used as a means to avoid accountability. Instead of responding to very valid questions about why he has ignored a perfectly legitimate RfC closure, Kwamikagami has simply told me to go away because I'm an ip. I couldn't care less about the condescending remarks and the impugning of my integrity per se. What I do care about is him using them to push through an against-consensus change into the Mos. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

146, if the RFC was closed and the changes were made by you and you were reverted, it appears there was no consensus. So, closing it as "no consensus" seems appropriate. By reverting those closures, which go against changes you had made to the MoS, your argument seems to float into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. Go to the talk page and start another discussion. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. There was whole RfC which ran for several weeks and involved umpteen editors. That's were the consensus was decided. The editors reverting me are a small subset of all of those involved in the RfC. The argument that you're using is the very same one that they are using. Three or four editors who opposed the change have decided that there is not consensus between themselves to accept the result of the RfC, and are reverting the changes that it brought about. If they're allowed to get away with it, then they've just invented a new way for a small group of editors, unhappy with the result of an RfC in which they participated, to sabotage it. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the number of editors who raise the issue, but the validity of the argument. You seem to view that your side "won" and that discussion should be closed marking your victory. I recommend you either request specific administrative action to be carried out by an admin against an offending party, or you return to the talk page and open or continue discussion about this topic. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, listen to the wise IP dangerous panda 21:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Nobody is saying that it's the number of editors that count. What I am saying is that after the RfC is over, a small number of those editors who participated in it should not be allowed to prevent the changes brought about by the RfC from being put in to effect. What I want to establish is whether we should allow an involved editor to revert the legitimate closure of RfC an by an uninvolved editor. I say that we shouldn't, and if we do we're undermining the entire RfC process. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

192.76.82.90, would you mind saying whether or not you have participated in the process that we are discussing? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to think that an IP address which has no edits and then suddenly starts editing the Manual of Style during a contentious argument is in fact a registered user who happens to be editing while logged out." That's an unreasonable accusation as well as innacurate. There was an RFC. IPs may participate. They may make edits to the manual of Style based on the closing as any editor may do. If you feel an editor is Sockpuppeting then make the accusation properly and show the diffs and whatever evidence you have. It is no more reasonable to accuse an IP of misbehavior than a registered user without proof.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Since my 'reasonable' close of this discussion was undone.An IP editor whose edits are almost exclusively to MOS should expect to have his/her integrity questioned, without prejudice of course. Do note that no one, not even kwami, is questioning the right of IP editors to edit without registering an account. All that the edit summary was saying was that this one IP editor is likely to be a registered editor hiding behind an IP. --regentspark (comment) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He used the edit summary to talk about me, conveniently avoiding using it for its proper purpose, which is to explain his edit. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be clear about your complaint. If you want to know whether his assumption was reasonable, it is fairly clear that the community believes it was reasonable. I note that you're also using this thread as a forum for reverting the RfC close. That's better done on the appropriate talk pages. --regentspark (comment) 22:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I always feel a little bad when I disagree with you RP as I have agreat deal of respect for your work. However, as I understand it, using the edit summary to make an unfounded accusation such as this is not appropriate and could lead to sanctions. Is it possible that the IP is a registered user, not logged in? Perhaps? But as I understand, there needs to be evidence of the sort and using the edit summary to make a claim as such goes against WP:REVTALK, which states: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself." Per a recent discussion with Dennis Brown: "Being logged out and editing isn't a violation of socking. Using that as an advantage is. This means voting twice in a poll like RfC or AfD, or using it to bypass 3RR, or in some other way that would make it looks you were two people when you are really one, like in a simple article talk page discussion about content."--Amadscientist (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint is that I'm being prevented from implementing the changes that should have come into effect when Nathan closed the RfC here. Instrumental in that is Kwamikagami who has changed the result of the RfC and is refusing to discuss why. What I would like from admins is opinions on whether Nathan's closure should stand and, if it should stand, help in making the change to the article. "Take it to the talk page" is not really an option because the talk page is now inhabited by a small number of editors who took part in the RfC and are unhappy with the outcome. There is a consensus among those editors, a small subset of all those involved in the RfC, that the RfC should not be implemented. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

146, WP:STICK. WP:POINT. Nothing will come by arguing here. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might well be right, but I hope not. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are discussing a content dispute. If your contributions were excluded and you feel this was done in an improper manner the best venue would be DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question... When an editor's very first edit is something like this,[50] it is right and proper to be suspicious of the editor - be it an IP or a redlink or whatever. It practically screams "wikipedia abuser". And griping about it reinforces that suspicion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly what is so suspicious? I am suspicious of a number of editors. So what? It is only when you express suspicions in an innappropriate manner that an issue arises. What in the edit or edit summary was incorrect....or is it that it WASN'T incorrect that gives editors pause? The editor was correct. RFCs do not require an admin closing. If the RFC has become contentious and a request for admin closing was made, then I could understand the problem. Did this have an request for admin closing?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Years of experience indicate that when someone shows up from nowhere, and their first edits are complaints about something on a WP page, that practically screams "Sockpuppet!" However, if the OP reveals some of the other user ID's and/or IP's he's edited under, he could gain some credibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd have bothered to read the discussion that you're commenting on, you'd have seen that I self-identified as a different ip address who had commented on the RfC. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I'm not seeing it, but I might be blind. Post the diff here, please. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recap

I'm sorry but I've re-opened this for further input. Nobody closed it with " Opinions vary on questioning the integrity of the IP but there's a clear consensus this is not the place to argue about the RFC close." Well, if you search through the discussion you will see that almost nobody has commented on the RfC closure. There certainly isn't a consensus. Ip 192.76.82.90 had very strong opinions on the matter, but he disappeared when asked whether or not he was an involved party. Sorry for beating the drum, but either we have an RfC procedure or we don't. We shouldn't let an involved editor overturn a valid RfC closure. To re-iterate:

My complaint is that I'm being prevented from implementing the changes that should have come into effect when Nathan closed the RfC here. Instrumental in that is Kwamikagami who has changed the result of the RfC and is refusing to discuss why. What I would like from admins is opinions on whether Nathan's closure should stand and, if it should stand, help in making the change to the article. "Take it to the talk page" is not really an option because the talk page is now inhabited by a small number of editors who took part in the RfC and are unhappy with the outcome. There is a consensus among those editors, a small subset of all those involved in the RfC, that the RfC should not be implemented. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of non-admin closes is that non-admins should not close controversial issues, nor those where WP:CONSENSUS is not 100% obvious. The first close by a non-admin on a contentious topic was not valid, and as such, nothing from their close should have been considered as implementable. The valid close - and at first glance from a first reading of the entire RFC - shows that the admin close of no-consensus was correct. So, this has nothing to do with you as an IP, it has to do with someone closing an RFC improperly, and setting inappropriate expectations for other editors such as yourself dangerous panda 10:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're right about that, then I'll drop the stick, because as you say, the initial closure was invalid. There was a long discussion on the talk page about whether or not it is permissible to demand that an admin close an RfC. The discussion included editors and several admins. The overwhelming consensus was that it is not permissible, any uninvolved editor may close any RfC. Any RfC can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that the essay in the link you provided refers to closures of deletion debates. It was agreed in the MoS discussion that it is permissible to ask for admin closures in deletion debates, but not in RfCs, as the RfC page makes explicit. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the scope of the non-admin closes essay is Afd so it is not relevant to this discussion. The RFC policy clearly does not require an admin to close: it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. Nobody Ent 13:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And as it was formally closed here by an uninvolved editor, that closure should stand. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAC is about controversial Afds. Other wording extends NAC restrictions to controversial moves. Neither can be closed by non-admins. Contested RFCs can be closed by non-admins. However, all closures (except for a delete in an Afd or a move of a move-protected page) can be reverted boldly. If the revert is undone, the editor should go to the talk page, per BRD; the IP edit-warred instead. Granted, practically the same thing happened with a non-IP on the first closure, but editors can't use another's behavior to justify their own. I am not sure why this is on ANI; we can't enforce consensus through warnings, censures, locks and blocks, so I am not sure what you are asking an admin to do. Churn and change (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs are started when BRD hasn't worked. To accept BRD on the result of RfCs would make a nonsense of the whole process. Where would it end? RfCs are there to draw a line under the discussion 146.90.43.8 (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm looking at this completely incorrectly (and I've read the ANI thread as well as the RFC, but I don't think I am), Nathan Johnson (not an administrator) closed the RFC with one result, and was reverted twice because of their non-adminship status. However, in this edit, Kwamikagami (also not an admin) re-closed it with a different result, but this has been allowed to stand? If the RFC is contentious enough to require administrative closure, then fair enough, but no double standards please. Can someone who is actually an administrator review the RFC and determine the result? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it was closed by an uninvolved non-admin, reverted by one of the most heavily involved editors, then closed with a different result by another non-admin. But I don't agree that an admin should make the final call. The original closure was perfectly fine. Nobody has given any valid reason why it should not stand. The original closure should be reinstated. Doing otherwise would mean that any disgruntled, involved, editor could undo a closure he didn't like, and demand someone else close it. That would undermine the whole system. RfCs by their very nature are contentious. There will always be editors who disagree with the result. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An admin (Jayron32) has already commented on the closure, to wit: "Goodness gracious. There's a lot of people here who keep insisting that admins have special privileges in closing RFCs. Quite simply, and with all due respect, this idea is total and complete bullshit ..." The RFC policy clearly does not require an admin to close: it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. Nobody Ent 11:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some disagreement about whether admins have special magical powers to close discussions. Perhaps there should be an RfC about that. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP 192.76.82.90 "disappeared" because I left work and didn't feel like repeating the same spiel over-and-over again. But if you're so suspicious of my participating in this discussion because I'm an IP, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your initial question. 68.200.150.22 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors (I wasn't involved) reverted you. We shouldn't discuss the merits of the edits, content-wise, on this forum. They didn't revert you just because you were an IP. But while the comment you may actually be a registered editor was uncalled for and unpolitic, I agree with its truth. An IP dropped out of the Internet sky, went like an arrow to the talk page of a Wikipedia Project page (WP:MOS), and waded into a long-running, lengthy, arcane dispute, displaying a grasp of the discussion even most of the few who post on that page were unlikely to have. It was reasonable to assume you had participated in the debate as a registered user. And why bring this here? What do you want? Sanctions or warnings against those who reverted you? I would oppose it; being not as polite as people should be isn't grounds for censure, especially of one of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors, on the complaint of an edit-warring IP. If you are asking for the edit itself to be reinstated, I oppose that since there was no consensus (or any support) for your edit war on that page. Churn and change (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of a goup of 3 or 4 editors who are not prepared to let the result of the RfC stand. The RfC was widely advertised, lasted for weeks and involved many editors. An uninvolved editor assesed the RfC and decided that there was consensus in favour of change. A heavily involved editor didn't like the result, so reverted. You and two or three others continue to revert in order to prevent the changes agreed in the RfC from being implemented.

What I would like to know is whether there is a consensus on ani that that initial closure was perfectly proper, and should stand. I'm not asking ani to decide whether the assessment of consensus was correct--that's up to the closing editor. I'm simply asking whether the procedure was correct. Was there any valid reason to revert it?

Those of you who are unhappy with the legitimate result of the first RfC can start another, if you like. In the meantime, the result of the first RfC should be implemented. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. I never took part in the debate on whether to include the material; nor did I endorse the overturning of Nathan's closure. I never reverted you on that page; check the logs. Nor did I ever edit supporting the overturning of Nathan's closure; I just said others seem to be contesting it. Some other editors opposed the first closure. RFC closures, admin or NAC, aren't binding, and cannot be enforced by admin action, so an ANI consensus doesn't really apply. You could discuss this on the MOS talk page, or at dispute resolution, but I notice this has strayed from your first question. Churn and change (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Some other editors opposed the first closure. RFC closures, admin or NAC, aren't binding...". There will always be editors opposed to a closure. I always assumed that RfC closures are binding. If not, what's the point in having them? When participating in an RfC editors of opposing views state their case, and agree to independent assessment. They don't then decide not abide by the independent assessment if they're not happy with it. Don't you agree with that? Don't you agree that it is within the spirit of WP to abide by an RfC in which you have participated, even if you don't like the result, or disagree with the closing editor?

I was reverted twice because I'm an ip. If there is confundsensus here that the first closure was valid, and should be implemented, then I would hope that those reverting me would desist. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, RFC closures aren't binding. I think the idea is to add an uninvolved editor's voice to the debate, summarizing the issue and that way granting some gravitas to specific conclusions. If those conclusions are still not acceptable, I guess the dispute needs to go to other dispute-resolution forums such as DR. You argue the first closure was a valid NAC; I agree. However, there is nothing procedurally wrong with reverting a procedurally valid closure. I have participated only in the meta discussion of whether there is consensus or no consensus and what the two possibilities imply; I don't have a position on the merits of the material, which is fundamentally the spirit of the issue. I do have a problem with appealing to admins to settle the debate; it is ironic you opposed the other editor's appeal for an admin closure, rightly so then. I forget whether it was you or a sysop who pointed out the admin symbol is a mop and a bucket. Churn and change (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether there is anything "procedurally wrong" with the revert or not. If there isn't then I think we should look at adding something to the RfC page that prohibits involved editors from reverting an RfC they have just participated in. If you feel Noetica's reverts have been within the spirit of WP, then there is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between us. I am very uncomfortable coming here for help, but it seemed clear to me that those editors who are reverting are intent on having their own way, regardless of policy or WP ethos, so I felt I had no choice 146.90.43.8 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I am emphatically not appealing to admins to settle the debate. I am asking for admin input on the validity of the first close, and whether or not it is acceptable to revert an editor's edits based on his status as an ip. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for changes to WP:RFC, an essay and neither a policy nor a guideline, but as it stands, it doesn't consider an RFC closure as binding. The page starts with the "informal" nature of an RFC. No, I didn't say the first revert was within the spirit of WP. But you started a separate discussion on that, and again found multiple editors opposing the closure. The "spirit of WP" isn't practically very useful in convincing objectors in any debate. You realize asking for "admin input on the validity of the first close" is essentially endorsing one of the objections, a wrong one, to the first closure—that it was a NAC? I see your argument is getting more admins involved (proposer of original RFC was an admin) would help drive the issue to a consensus. I have a problem with admins taking up the role of guiding others, motivated and propelled by "the spirit of WP." The community vetted and voted for them to use their tools in mop-and-bucket fashion, not to be considered guides on content. I think I am quoting you here, though I might have mixed up the comments with those of a sysop's on that talk page. This is somewhat orthogonal to your issue (whether to include the material), but matters in the larger scheme of things. Churn and change (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting away from adding anything meaningful to this subsection, so perhaps we better take it to talk if you want to continue. I'll make one more reply here. I agree absolutely that admins should not be used for matters relating to content. It was me who mentioned the icon.

I was trying to implement the result of the RfC, which had been legitimately closed. I was tag-team reverted. The reverters made no realistic attempt to justify their actions, instead dismissing my edits because I am an ip. I was in two minds: should I post to the talk pages of everyone who participated in the RfC, explaining what was happening, and inviting further input, or should I come here. Posting to all the talk pages seemed almost equivalent to re-opening the RfC, which really should not have been necessary. It seemed to me that the way I was reverted might well be a policy issue, so I came here. Similarly with the RfC page, it seems to be a grey area. It's not marked as policy and it's certainly not marked as an essay. Regardless of how it is marked, I suggest that most editors respect it in the same way that respect policy.146.90.43.8 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would an uninvolved admin please endorse or overturn the RfC closure?

The dispute above is about an RfC that was held from September 1 to October 4 on WT:MOS. The RfC was about the sentence: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." The dispute is about the words "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." They were removed last year (I believe without discussion). The question is whether to endorse the removal or to restore those words.

A request for closure was made on AN/RFC, and it was closed on October 4 by User:Nathan Johnson. His closure is here. He decided there was consensus to restore the words. Noetica, who is strongly opposed to those words, reverted Nathan's closure twice, arguing that an admin had to close it, and that the closure was premature. [51] [52]

I therefore requested an admin closure on AN/RFC on October 8. [53] Yesterday, Kwamikagami – who is a supporter of cross-article style consistency, a supporter of Noetica's, and who I believe was desysopped recently for misusing the tools in MoS disputes – arrived to overturn Nathan's closure. [54] He cannot be regarded as uninvolved here.

It would be very much appreciated if an uninvolved admin would examine Nathan's closure and decide whether it is valid or not, and if not, what the next step should be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I looked at the history of the request on AN and the actual close by Nathan Johnson and see nothing wrong with his/her closing it. This is not an endorsement of anything other than the procedural validity of that close. --regentspark (comment) 21:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, that's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks.. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now Noetica has reverted RegentsPark's endorsement on a technicality, because the RFC bot had already removed the tag when Nathan closed the RfC. Now we need to have a 100.000 word discussion to tell Noetica that RfCs don't become magically unclosable when the RfC bot removes the tag after 30 days. This is the sort of bureaucratic stonewalling that keeps disrupting consensus formation at WT:MOS. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od) For the record. I've reverted Neotarf's revert of Enric Naval's revert of Noetica's revert of my endorsed closure. If that string of reverts doesn't tell us its time to put this behind us, then nothing will. Either way, my work is done. Imo, further reverts can only be construed as disruptive but it probably isn't appropriate for me to do anything about that so I'll leave this to others to deal with. --regentspark (comment) 01:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the top text of the closed area refers to kwami's decision rather than Nathan's. They came to opposite conclusions about whether or not to reinsert the text. For the moment, I'm assuming that this is an oversight, and I've reinserted the contested text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, found it. Churn, not RegentsPark, did the hatting and happened to list Kwami's decision up top rather than Nathan's. It's fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaand now it's reverted in what Beeblebrox thinks is at least the opening stages of an edit war. RegentsPark, I hope this doesn't put you off touching the MoS, but HELP! Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Seriously folks, there's no admin action required anywhere. Just drop it and move on. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there has been a request for a non-involved admin to reveiw the closings. Whether this discussion belongs here or not I could see there being good points, but lets at least deal with the issue of the request and let an admin decide what to do from here...if they feel so inclined.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. If every time someone doesn't like a non-admin RFC close they can come to ANI to get it reviewed, what's the point of having NAC in the first place? Given there are backlogs of tasks that require admins, it's not the best use of a limited resource. Nobody Ent 19:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Closure of this thread with a summary that there is consensus on ani that the original RfC closure was valid, and should not have been overturned for being a NAC, would be my preferred solution. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Ent, I agree too. But Noetica has twice reverted the non-admin closure. So in the interests of avoiding further reverting, I'm asking that an admin decide whether to endorse or overturn Nathan's closure. Otherwise we have spent a month holding an RfC with no outcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So an uninvolved admin should review Noetica's behavior and see if there was any justification for reverting Nathan's closure. Got it. That's reasonable. Nobody Ent 20:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it fine for an admin or a cluster of admins to judge this. That is not part of their role. RFC closures can be reverted. That is continuation, ill-advised perhaps, of a content dispute. WP:Administrators is policy, and it lists their role as arbitrators: they adjudicate discussions such as deletions. Assessing WP:CONSENSUS in closure of RFCs or reversion of closures is not listed there because WP:RFC makes it clear that is an informal process involving editors. I oppose extending convention to lend admins more powers by creating a new tradition. Not because I think admins are not to be trusted, but because it moves farther from the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. I don't have a position on the material itself; so if somebody just puts it in, or undoes the original discussion to some previous stage, I won't revert. Churn and change (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've made that point several times, Churn, but with nothing to back it up. Yes, RfCs can be overturned if there is something wrong with the closure (e.g. it was closed prematurely or by someone involved). But otherwise closures should generally be respected. If any involved party can overturn an RfC that was open for 33 days, where it was closed by an editor that no one could argue was involved, then there is no point in holding RfCs in the first place.

I've changed Ritchie's header, by the way, because it was provocative and implied that the request for closure is not a reasonable one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the onus is on you to show RFCs are something special and not just a glorified form of a talk-page consensus. They aren't policy; they aren't guidelines; so when you say NAC RFC closures "should generally be respected", isn't that just like saying "the view of multiple editors on a talk page should generally be respected"? How can we ask for admin help to enforce that respect? I realize that is the last thing people who have spent time and effort debating points on an RFC want to hear, especially from somebody who has been debating just the meta aspects of the discussion, but the alternative of asking admins to judge I find troublesome in the longer run. Churn and change (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rfc#Ending_RfC Nobody Ent 21:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that RFC's should carry a tiny bit more weight than a talk page discussion. Typically have a bit more input, (gauge the level of that for the particular case) and some type of a closing process based on wikepedian principles. And an Admin close should carry a tiny bit more weight than a non-admin close. True, an admin can be just a kid who got the tools by working the system, but on average, they are more vetted than an average editor. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point of an RfC is that its throws its net far and wide. It brings many editors into a discussion who wouldn't ordinarily be involved in that discussion. When an editor participates in an RfC he does so in the expectation that it will be closed in accordance with the accepted procedures. Many of those editors then move on. What has happened here is that a kernel of heavily involved editors have hung around after everyone has left and are refusing to allow the results of the RfC to be implemented. If that becomes standard practice, then RfC, one of the few mechanisms on WP that does usually end in a result which all parties accept, will disappear. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica did not revert this user because he or she is anonymous. Noetica reverted this user because he or she disagreed with him. 146, just register and get a username. Then people will have to find other excuses to revert your actions. The problem is easily fixed. 146, Carl answered your question right away. You've used that issue as an excuse to bring the original RfC to the attention of these editors. It's a bit disingenuous. Find an appropriate forum and ask the question, "Is it okay to revert a closure of an arguably ongoing RfC for the sole reason that the person who closed it is not an admin?" if that's what you really want to know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to serious and continuing irregularities: set the RFC aside as completely irregular

I should have been notified of the discussion above, since all sorts of statements are being made about me. Some are misrepresentations; some are lies. The discussion here was closed (how about that?). It was then re-opened by an IP who is clearly a very adept operator and is evading the consequences of his or her actions, by posting on weighty matters in a partisan fashion but without revealing a Wikipedian identity. I have attempted to revert the irregular closure of the RFC by an admin. Note: I never said that an admin was needed for closing controversial RFCs; I called for one to sort it out, since the RFC had been set up misleadingly and non-neutrally from the start by admin SlimVirgin. It is extremely difficult to counter such behaviour from a well-connected and politically astute admin who is prepared to twist the truth to restore old wording she had inserted years ago in WP:MOS, and which had been removed in favour of a more consensual and more accurate lead over a year ago (with 4,000 words of discussion).

In good faith I do my bit to protect WP:MOS from arbitrary subversion by powerful operators, some cloaked in anonymity. I make myself extremely vulnerable in doing so. But some of us are indeed ready to stand up and work against such abuses.

My current intention is to request an ArbCom case to sort out the very worrying course of this affair. I request now that the RFC be set aside as hopelessly compromised from the very beginning, as a reasonable interim step in the restoration of stability and good order.

Noetica^Tea? 01:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, you should not call other people liars and then say, "I never said that an admin was needed for closing controversial RFCs."

Please note the words, "controversial RFCs should be closed by admins" in this change: [55] They might be telling the truth, and they might be lying, but they also might have forgotten or made a mistake, just like you might have forgotten that you said this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog, I did not call anyone a liar. Read and report with care, please. And when you quote, do not suppress relevant context. My complete edit summary: "(Revert closure of RFC by User:Nathan Johnson; controversial RFCs should be closed by admins; this was premature: actions had been asked for and were pending; failed to distinguish points about consistency 1. where choices were allowed and 2. generally)". There is a difference between a need (as a matter of policy, or established procedure) and an optimal state of affairs (a should, such as some admins in the discussion above have agreed applies in the present case). I reverted Nathan's attempt at closure because it was premature and incompetent (and as I later stressed, the RFC had lapsed according to one of the ways WP:RFC provides for: it was delisted by the bot). Since then, people have lied about what I did and my reasons for doing so. In any case, you endorsed my reversion of Nathan's closure, and called for discussion to continue. When I found the time, I made an extensive summation of the RFC, labelling it as Noetica's RFC summation (now hidden in the RFC's extended content). I invite people here to read that. It was set aside and not considered by Regentspark, though I spent considerable time preparing it when you, I, and others agreed that discussion should continue.

I regret that real life intrudes, and I am now unable to participate fully as any further developments unfold. I'll try to deal with anything that people want me to, when I can justify spending more time on this fiasco. Meanwhile, I again urge people to see how the RFC was tainted and mismanaged from the start (as I am on record as fearing that it would be, before it began).

Noetica^Tea? 02:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Noetica, if you say "People are saying things about me. Those things are lies," that counts as calling those people liars.

I did think that the RfC should not have been closed, but not for the same reasons that you gave. I believed it should remain because the discussion was, at that time, ongoing, and it still seemed likely that people would present evidence in favor of their positions. It's been a while now, and that has yet to happen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this is what he's been doing all along. He's reverting the closure simply because he doesn't like the way it turned out, and burying that simple truth in a mountain of verbiage. He reverted the fist closure because it was made by a non-admin . Another non-admin then closed it the way he wanted, so he reverted to keep that closure in place. An admin has now reinstated the first closure, with the backing of ani, and he's still reverting. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions

The policy page in question is under discretionary sanctions (Article titles and capitalisation). Per policy admins are supposed to receive input when applying sanctions. Would there be any objections if I placed Wikipedia:Manual of Style and it's talk page under a one revert per 24 hour period restriction for 3 months? --Guerillero | My Talk 03:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is needed instead is a change to the culture at WP:MOS. The quote, WT:MOS is not for the faint at heart at the best of times (I am quoting from memory) indicates a huge change is needed. That type of lack of incivility it connotes is completely unacceptable, in my opinion. I would like to make sure that discussion remains on the wording of the MOS, not on the application of the MOS. I think that the culture that has grown up is that changing the MOS changes articles. No, changing articles changes the MOS. There was almost infinite discussion over whether Mexican American War was spelled with an endash or an hyphen when a check of any dictionary or book with the term reveals the answer. The article was no help as it had been moved a half a dozen times from 2006 to 2011. The MOS is never the place to decide that answer. The article talk page is. Apteva (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apteva, I doubt that Guerillero was asking for a manifesto. I will not comment here on the content of yours, nor on your conduct at WT:MOS and elsewhere in the last couple of weeks.
I believe the question is focused on the most recent upheavals and instability at WP:MOS and its talkpage. As a major participant in the development of that page, passionately committed to its orderly and consensual development, I have no problem at all with Guerillero's suggestion. Possibly just one month would do? But anyway:
Support.
Noetica^Tea? 07:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technical breach of WP:3RR

I thank User:Nathan Johnson for pointing out that I was technically in breach of WP:3RR. See details in this section at my talkpage. I am normally extremely careful about 3RR, and had no intention of doing such a thing in what I clearly signalled as perceived errors made by another editor at WT:MOS (as the record clearly shows). In fact, the editor whose editing Darkfrog altered agrees with me: it was a misunderstanding on Darkfrog's part. I am away from my usual facilities, and sometimes editing on handheld devices; so it is hard to keep track of the extraordinary developments at WP:MOS and its talkpage recently. In sum, I submit that my beach was inadvertent, well-motivated, excusable under WP:IAR for the circumstances (fixing an error), and something I have not done before and have an abhorrence of.
I will now paste a link to this explanation at the talkpages of editors who may be considered involved.
Noetica^Tea? 07:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring BLP violations by User:Ironman1104

User:Ironman1104 added a link to a YouTube video to the biography of a UK politician Dianne Abbott. The YouTube video is titled "Diane Abbott - A Racist Pig". Ironman1104 has previously edited the article to include coverage of controversial remarks made by Abbott. Their edit-warring on this article is discussed here. Ironman1104 similarly added negative information to the biography of another female Labour politician, Harriet Harman (discussed here). Although I note that it was April Fool's Day, they also made a series of edits to another BLP, Peter Cruddas, which mixed in some unacceptably insulting redirects ([56] & [57]).

I think the YouTube video is enough for a block, but given the apparent history with BLPs of politicians, I think a topic ban may be in order, so I have started a discussion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is ok with having an offensive YouTube video linked to the biography of a UK politician? I guess it's a good thing I left the link there, then. Someone close this up and I'll give Ironman1104 a barnstar instead. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, regardless of the title or content, many YouTube videos are copyright violations, and that one certainly is - see WP:YOUTUBE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't usually like blocking people without warning, I'm very tempted to do so here. I've asked Ironman1104 to comment, otherwise I may still issue that block. He hasn't edited since before the warning, so we can afford to wait a little bit and see. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man - talk page ban request

I would like to have User:The Rambling Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) banned from making any edits to my talk page. There is apparently precedent for such an action. His edits to my talk page are belligerent and prolific and are not conducive to furthering the project. I have asked him to refrain from editing my talk page but he summarily deleted my request. I have therefore decided to take it up in this forum.

The rationale for my suggestion of a talk page ban is based on these reasons (in no particular order):

He is an admin and has threatened to remove editing privileges from me on at least two occasions. Threats of this nature should surely not be used?

I am accused of having a "personal agenda" which I take it as meaning something that is not in keeping with the goals of the community. It should be obvious from my editing to remove vandalism, to clear backlogs, as well as from my talk page headers and from the new articles and WP structure created by me that my "personal agenda" is obvious - to help build and improve WP.

The requests that he is making of me are frivolous and have no basis in policy or guidelines. I am asked to make my edit summaries unnecessarily comprehensive and to carry out edits to user pages in a manner that is tedious and unnecessary. The edits in question concern the removal of content categories from user namespace pages, especially sandboxes. The Rambling Man seems to think that user sandboxes are somehow sacrosanct and other editors should leave well alone. This is surely the wrong stance to take. A sandbox is essentially a place for temporary notes and it is poor form to have them polluting content categories. Additionally, if they are in a genuine user draft article the categories that I am removing are sometimes completely inappropriate to the topic. Since the category system is, by some editors own admission, poorly understood it may be better to leave a user names space draft that has been moved to article namespace as uncategorised. It can then be categorised correctly by editors who specialise in that task. Having an article in an uncategorised state prior to this occurring is better than being incorrectly categorised.

He is affecting my ability to edit Wikipedia.

He is accusing me of "bitey" behaviour and scaring off new editors. This accusation has no rational basis. What he calls bitey behaviour should be seen as neutral, and only the occasional editor questions one of the many hundreds of edits that I make to user namespace pages. The sort of behaviour carried out by The Rambling Man is in fact responsible for long-standing, proficient and productive editors from either leaving Wikipedia and severely curtailing their editing.

His comments on my talk page have spread to other user talk pages, eg User:Hammersoft, User:postdlf and User:The Rambling Man and are preventing collegial and constructive interaction between editors. Examples at [58], [59], [60]

Another editor, would also takes issue with the method of my editing, has warned The Rambling Man about his style of commentary. This is an indication that my request for a talk page ban is not a case of sour grapes on my part.

The most recent series of discussions was provoked by an unfortunate incident where I rolled back an edit by The Rambling Man who in turn had undone an edit of mine. Since he did not use an accurate edit summary and in the heat of the moment and due to the new lighter shadings used in the page diff display being less obvious I construed the edit to be vandalism since he appeared to be adding content categories to a user page.

If The Rambling Man is to be blocked from my talk page and he has concerns about any editing that I may do in the future he would be able to take them to any number of other forums in order to have them addressed.

It is rather sad to see the many instances of prolific editors succumbing to emotive behaviour that is to the detriment of the project. I am myself guilty of such behaviour. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My advice: if you've asked him not to post there, and he persists in doing so, simply delete his comments without reading them, with the edit summary "Deleted without reading, editor has been asked not to post here". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... I'm not sure what the problem is. You asked him to not post on your talk page and he hasn't since. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely some concerns with Alan Liefting's nonchalant approach to things such as CSD or reverting what he sees as "vandalism", [61][62][63] but I think it would be best for The Rambling Man to disengage from dealing with Alan altogether. His comments, even if they were mild and from a neutral perspective (which, to be 100% honest, does not appear to be the case), will only serve to exacerbate the situation further. He can no longer be considered an uninvolved administrator in this dispute. Kurtis (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) I don't see the problem. Has he posted to your talk page after Carl asked him not to? As for the larger issue of discussing your edits elsewhere, I strongly doubt you'll find consensus for an WP:IBAN here given that other editors have found your editing problematic as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, it looks like he has. The Rambling Man should stop posting to Alan Liefting's talk page. He should start a RfC/U instead, assuming he can find someone to co-certify it. Otherwise he should simply drop the matter. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that The Rambling Man is not neutral in reporting Alan Liefting (see e.g. '.. I will block you and remove your "privileges"', my emphasis, since retracted by The Rambling Man), and these remarks/situations are clearly not resulting in a collegial collaboration (continuing to beat the dead horse - note that also User:Hammersoft repeatedly tried to disengage from the discussion, but that The Rambling Man found it necessary to continue the discussion). I would support this interaction ban. The Rambling Man, bring your concerns to other editors, who can evaluate and take the actions they think necessary. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft's intention in the first of these "multiple attempts" was not to disengage. It was to get the last word in, and try to claim a moral high ground when TRM excercised his right of reply against what he sees as "lies". Whether or not you agree with TRM, there is no question that TRM truly believes that some of the comments are lies. I cannot think of a single established Wikipedian who, when accused by another of things they consider to be false, would not make at least one attempt to set the record straight.

Other than to end the discussion, and state for the record that he considers unretracted comments made about him to be untrue (all done between 22:41 and 22:51 last night) TRM has not made any edit related to this matter in five days. As for Alan, he has returned from a week long absence and done nothing other than return to this issue. I'm not saying that he is necessarily doing so in bad faith, as TRM's comments from five days ago will popped up on his talk page when he returned. But the first step in avoiding someone is to make the most of a period of silence, and the second is to try not to re-start the discussion. Alan has not followed these steps, and editing restrictions should only be considered if lightweight measures such as this have been tried and failed. For that reason, and because the implication of a ban is that TRM is harrassing Alan and refuses to cease doing so, I can't take this request seriously. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft there made a reply, and disengaged. The Rambling Man is allowed to comment on that, but should not expect a further answer from Hammersoft, however, he insisted. I agree, TRM truly believes these are lies, but if that is the issue: bring it into dispute resolution.

Regarding Alan, yes, he may not have seen the last comment until now - seeing a whole series of posts from The Rambling Man. May I bring to your attention, that The Rambling Man is, after Alan, the second human contributor to Alan's talkpage, posting significantly more often than the third contributor? And I do think that we should take seriously that an administrator who is the second contributor to a user talkpage; I think that the remark 'I will block you and remove your "privileges"' certainly shows that it is time that The Rambling Man is disengaging from Alan. Leave it to independent editors. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose talk page ban, TRM has not posted to Alan's talk page since Alan requested TRM not to. Nobody Ent 11:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, there's no indication TRM has done that since removing and presumably acknowledging Alan's message on TRM's talk page [64]. So this ANI report appears to be an unwarranted escalation at this point. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose talk page ban as premature per above. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey Revell

BLOCKED

Nobody Ent 10:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Veiled legal threat by a WP:SPA claiming to be a lawyer: suggestion by AmandaBCook (talk · contribs) that the subject of this AfD has been libeled [65]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's veiled if it is a legal threat. Amanda tried writing an article, and was told the subject wasn't notable. She then tried to appeal to editors emotions, and was rejected. And then she tried to warn them of possible legal consequences. I'm not sure it's blatant enough to block over, but it's obvious she's not here to build an encyclopedia - just to promote the career of Grey Revell. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see that she has had much to do with the article's content or history, but she doesn't like the direction of the AFD, as evidenced by the comments Perhaps John from Chapel Hill can answer that question. He seems to have some sort of personal connection to and/or vendetta against Mr. Revell. I don't have time to keep adding reliable sources just to have them taken down by the likes of you. My law practice keeps me too busy to fool around much on Wikipedia. But I do know that calling an artist whose career depends on notoriety "un-notable" might be considered by a court as libel, Mr. 76.248.149.47, which attempt to turn an AFD discussion into a personal match, questioning other editors' motives and implying that not finding the subject notable has legal ramifications. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very tempted to apply SNOW to that deletion discussion, but I'll give it another couple of days; maybe the ARS can prove all you wicked deletionists wrong and save the world. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a "veiled" legal thread only in the sense that the person who wrote it did so very carefully in order not to violate the letter of WP:NLT. It is nonetheless totally in violation of the spirit of the policy. The editor should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, no Wiki-Lawyering is permitted. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What BMK said. That it's an implausible legal threat doesn't stop it being a legal threat. (Go Phightins!: Wiki-Lawyering not quite the same.) --Shirt58 (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that not following the spirit of the policy WP:NLT is a characteristic of Wiki-Lawyering, which encompasses criterion 2 under the Wiki-Lawyering page, "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles". Thus, I characterized it Wiki-Lawyering. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-lawyering would imply a familiarity with Wiki-policy. She's not "Wiki-lawyering", she's just "lawyering" ;) Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it's inappropriate. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on, Go Phightins! No need to wikilawyer about it.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a block of the user per BMK. Perceived plausibility of a legal threat is far less (perhaps not at all) important than the fact that the user believed it was reasonable to engage others that way on Wikipedia. Not to mention that it suppresses constructive discussion, rather than encourages it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a block, for making legal threats. Aside from that, she's a WP:SPA with an evident WP:COI who is here to WP:ADVERT the guy. Strictly speaking, those are not blockable offenses in themselves, unless they lead to disruptive editing. But the fact is that she's had a carload of wiki policy links thrown in her direction, and despite her claims of having a legally trained mind, she hasn't deigned to respond to a single policy concern in any coherent manner. Qworty (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rapid and copious response is appreciated. Since she sort of blew the 'kiss' in my direction, I'd like to drop in my nickel re: blocking--no hurry. There was a single legal hint dropped, not repeated accusations of libel--enough to merit reporting, but maybe borderline for blocking. Perhaps she's just called it a day, like I should now do. She's dug an obvious hole, there are plenty of eyes on this, and there's no reason not to allow an explanation by the light of the new day. If the drama is further accelerated, or no response is offered after a reasonable length of time, the desirability of a block can assessed. Cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm no lawyer, but though I share nationality with Trumps and Kardashians, I can't fathom how saying someone is non-notable could possibly be taken as libelous; this [66] constituted libel. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a legal "bluff", and hence it's a legal threat, and the user MUST be blocked until or if they recant and disavow it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bugs. It's not up to the "victim" to decide what's actionable here--the only thing that matters is that WP policy requires a block until the legal threat is rescinded. Qworty (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts to the posse: one, I can not find anything in WP:LEGAL that says a block is required. the guideline's language is measured, and references administrators' discretion. Two, in no way did I suggest that any action is my decision, nor do I see myself as a victim. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the language in the policy is clear [67]. "If these conflicts are in fact resolved (or a consensus is reached to test if they are resolved), then involved editors should be unblocked if there are no other issues that warrant a block." Qworty (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked her. We can move on now :). Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:COI and non WP:NPOV editing of Scottish Knights Templar

Jehochman is dealing with the article and the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Balantrodach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is also discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Edit_war_on_Scottish_Knights_Templar . Two users apparently close to the topic have been engaged in WP:COI and WP:NPOV editing and anonymous IPs edit warring with Balantrodach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Scottish Knights Templar [e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_Knights_Templar&diff=513217700&oldid=513216487]. One of the users Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has on his talk page that he is " Acting Chief Communication Officer of OSMTH and Secretary of the St Clair Commandery of Scotland, prior Chancellor of Militi Templi Scotia and International Grand Secretary General Emeritus." This suggests the same user as blocked user GSGOSMTH (talk) He has been commenting in the article on the edits of user Balantrodach [e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_Knights_Templar&diff=515153976&oldid=515144952] and [here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_Knights_Templar&diff=511568947&oldid=511541798]. One administrator Jehochman imposed a Topic Ban on Balantrodach (talk) giving this edit as an [example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_Knights_Templar&diff=517270733&oldid=517267300], as well as their general editing history, suggesting that they are engaged in WP:COI editing in a manner that is impermissible. User Betty Logan (talk) has revoked the Topic Ban as it is not appropriate to topic ban someone for simply having a conflict of interest. But there really does seem to be WP:COI and lack of WP:NPOV. Quaerere Verum (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to warn an editor that their participation at an article is disruptive and that they will be blocked if they make further disruptive edits. I don't know who Betty Logan is, but they haven't revoked anything because they didn't even attempt to talk to me, and I have no idea if they are an administrator or not. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this other than what I've read at ANEW and here, but Betty is not an admin, so I don't see how she can "revoke" anything, but Amatulic's comment at ANEW seems reasonable - what was the basis for your unilaterally imposing a topic ban? I note that Amatulic supports the ban, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balantrodach admitted to editing on behalf of the organization. You can find the relevant diff in the message I left on the user's talk page. They are edit warring and editing contrary to a host of Wikipedia policies. This is very mundane enforcement of our basic rules. Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basic rules for WP:BANs due not include unilateral action. Nobody Ent 14:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Balantrodach wants to explain their actions and ask for the editing restriction to be lifted, they may do so. I don't see the benefit to them of starting a community discussion now. There's a risk the final warning I gave them might change into a community imposed topic ban, which would be a lot harder to get rid of. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your motives, I don't see that you have the right to impose a topic ban. Perhaps you should have simply not used the phrase and warned the user about disruptive editing (assuming that's justified), which could lead to a block if they persisted. Anyway, I'll let others chime in.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just Balantrodach (talk) editing disruptively, see above on Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Quaerere Verum (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recap what I said at AN3, I don't have a problem with warning the editor because his POV pushing is detrimental so it needs to be addressed. The problem with a topic ban is that if the editor adjusts his approach and adds something neutral and sourced then he would still be in breach of a ban, which I don't necessarily agree with. Personally I would give him a short-term block to start with, and if he continues after the block has expired then indef him until he clarifies his COI status and agrees to abide by the policies and engage in the discussions. Personally I don't think a topic ban is the solution since they are utilised mostly in cases of editors where the problems are just limited to one area but the editor demonstrates competency in other areas, but this is not the case here. As pointed out I'm not an admin so I have no say in the sanction, I was just a bit concerned at seeing a ban handed out the way it was here. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what is being requested here. Does Jehochman want to propose a topic ban? Does anyone want to propose a topic ban? Is anyone requesting a block of Balantrodach? As an aside, this whole thing about Paulmagoo and GSGOSMTH is mightily confusing. The latter was indeffed years ago for having a "role account". Paulmagoo has never been blocked, yet there are comments on various pages about users being a sockpuppet of Paulmagoo. More chaos/suspicion than evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? In the article "Would the person or persons who keep changing the above please stop, it would be good if you named yourself but being the coward you are you will not this type of attitude is not Templar. Archie if you had looked at the top of the edit page you would have seen it was me, but just to clarify, it was me who made the edits. I have moved my questions to the Talk page, perhaps you may want to answer them there! Paulmagoo (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)" Quaerere Verum (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And we haven't even started on the obvious JFK connection... Drmies (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like all the people who are unfamiliar with the multiyear history of trouble with this article to please familiarize themselves with the facts before commenting further. If I had indef blocked the troublesome editor, there's no issue. If I try to be kind and just give them a topic ban, a bunch of editors shoot from the hip and say "you can't do that." Yes, if I can block an editor, I can certainly tell them, "I'm giving you another chance, just don't touch this article and have no need to block you." If the editor wants that situation changed, all they need to do is speak up. Why is everybody else injecting themselves here in lawyerly fashion? Let the editor speak for themsleves. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nobody seems to have looked at the article, you are the only one trying to address the problems. Quaerere Verum (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted earlier, the reason everyone is commenting is because you used the phrase "topic ban". I don't necessarily have a problem with what you're trying to accomplish, but the phrase sets off alarm bells. Don't use the term in this kind of situation, even if that seems euphemistic to you; we probably wouldn't be here if you hadn't. This no doubt seems to you like a whole lot of annoying hoopla over nothing, but there it is. I now have to run to catch my connecting flight at JFK.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a vernacular issue then fair enough; this editor has done nothing to warrant good faith in his actions. My only concern was indeed the issuing of a "topic ban": this implies that he could be blocked on the basis of editing the article at all, even if he added something neutrally and sourced, that's all that concerned me really. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I drive to the store and stay on the right side of the road, I'm doing the right thing. If I take a vacation to New Zealand and drive down the right side of the road, I'm being a dangerous asshole. It's not that either the left or right is better, it's just that it's a convention, and societies would better when folks follow conventions. If an admin blocks an editor, there are checks and balances -- the user can post an unblock request, and the action is logged, so if an admin develops a history of poor blocks it can be addressed. If admins just go around imposing topic bans, where are the checks and balances? Jehochman should strike out "topic ban" and change it to a standard disruptive editing warning. If the editor makes another bogus edit, he or another admin can block, and if the editor fixes a spelling error we can all ignore it (or be happy Wikipedia has been approved). And we can close this thread, too. Nobody Ent 20:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any issue here. I think everyone's agreed that Jehochman made a "topic ban" threat that he couldn't have carried out. He could only have blocked if the editor made further disruptive editing. If the editor had made a non-disruptive edit to the article and Jehochman had blocked him for breach of the so-called "topic ban", that would presumably have been overturned immediately and Jehochman would have been rightly trouted. But as Jehochman hasn't actually done that, isn't it best that this is just dropped? DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I would even close this, but I'm not sure if Jehochman is waiting for the editor to "speak" here or somewhere else. As far as I'm concerned, Jehochman can close it if he wishes to.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not close without looking at the article and addressing the problem, it is only Jehochman who is doing anything. Quaerere Verum (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are done here. The article is protected from IP socking, and if the one editor causes further problems there will be no problem to block them. A single purpose account that does nothing but edit war and POV push can be indefinitely blocked without further discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 23:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat on Moodbar Feedback

Per this comment from Akkiiey (talk · contribs), I propose a block per WP:NLT. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly an NLT issue here, but it isn't aimed at a particular user, and this is a brand-new editor (no article-space contributions at all that I can see). He has been warned of the NLT policy, and I think we can leave it at that unless he offends again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left an explanation on what NLT actually means to supplement the simple link that was left. To be honest, I doubt it will matter, because the user probably won't be back. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

request user block on mtking

Please can a sysop please block mtking for the troll action of trying to have the page on Amanda Todd deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripatodd (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) - The above editor was indefinitely blocked by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) as a confirmed sock through a checkuser. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a confirmed sock, but I have my feelings on who this is, plus they are using a webhost, which I block any user that looks like a sock and is editing from a webhost (essentially a proxy). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Fisher

User:Toddjfisher has been making "minor edits" (note that they aren't really minor, he just tags them as such) to this page (see an example here, this is a series of about a dozen edits). The edits seem to constitute original research not to mention the major conflict of interest. My comments on his talk page have gone unreplied, so I wasn't quite sure what the best next course of action would be. Note that in this edit he removed someones objection to an objection of a CSD. This is becoming disruptive and something should probably be done. As mentioned, I've tried to handle this via the talk page route, but to no avail. Thanks in advance--Go Phightins! (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notified User:Toddjfisher of this thread. In the future you must do that. GB fan 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did...but that was right around when my internet crashed. My apologies, I am aware of this and as mentioned thought that I did. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

zOMG!!!111 Go Phightins! broke teh internets, etc, etc

--Shirt58 (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user indefinitely for username issues--user's can't have the name of a "famous" person (unless they identify through OTRS they really are that person). If there's an unblock request, we can worry about getting reassurances on the COI issue as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Spence

Practically identical users Hollyspence (talk · contribs) and Iamhollyspence (talk · contribs) created accounts today (Oct. 13). No edits have been made to the article space, but the former has created what seems like the exact same article here, here, and here. I have added the NOINDEX template to them as they seem to be using the space for intended articles. The article's content is promotional and needs cleanup for neutral tone, but quality of their article aside or whether it is appropriate, I am wondering if some warning or note should be made to the user about sock accounts, policy over how userpages should be used, and also about conflcits of interest, as the person making the article appears to be the subject's partner per the sentence "My wife has been anointed by God to deliver His Word to His people." I'm usually pretty comfortable approaching new users, but I'm not sure where to even start here without sounding bitey. Any suggestions? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts indeffed by Bbb23. _{And I predict the phrase 'divine retribution' to be used in unblock requests.} Ish dar ian 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And all pages (each account had the same three) have been deleted. Now you don't need to worry about being bitey, Jethrobot.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving me the trouble...that's quite a bite. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:BeasttoBeast

Alright, I am getting tired of having to deal with this user's edits (as I'm sure many others are too). This user continues to upload images with incorrect or missing sources, massive amounts of white space, replaces articles with older and lesser quality images (this versus this, makes questionable uploads (see their upload and the original upload), has been unwilling to engage in discussion, makes edits that could be considered vandalism, and the list goes on and on. It's obvious BeasttoBeast isn't willing to ask for help or engage in civil discussion (just look at his talk page and contributions), so I'm at a loss of what to do. This has to be violating at least a couple policies. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 07:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards